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 and this is on page 68 of our report, supervisors. and what we say, is place 3 million, 421 in the budget and finance committee reserve, pending the detailed

information on hiring new positions for the expanded positions and the services and the department fiscal year, budget, includes an increase of 115 positions, including 50 positions approved by the board of supervisors as amended to the salary ordinance in 13/14, the department's projected salary, surplus, in 13, 14, is 6.8 million, and if you accepted this recommendation, it will give the department plenty of time to provide us with the details that we would not be holding up any hiring whatsoever and so this recommendation, is not to penalize the department but to get the details in writing where we can analyze them and report back to the board and with regard to the recommended reductions, and rec mepded reductions of the total budget to the proposed budget, 635 in 15, 16, 425 are ongoing savings, and 180, one time savings and they will allow

increase of 10.5 million are 1.3 percent, of the budget, and these reductions will result in $384,965 savings in the city's general fund and 15/16, the department concurs with the reductions but does not concur with our recommended reserve. >> thank you. >> mr. rore why don't we go back to you. >> sure. >> and committee members, i am providing the information on the hiring which we do provide in the budget analyst, i believe and perhaps, the budget analyst office does not feel that it is sufficient in order to reverse the recommendations. and so if you recall, a couple of months ago, you will approve the budget supplemental to add the additional staff and i am happy to report that 52 of the 56 additional staff will be hired, by the end of july, which represents 2 and a half months, and so we have significantly reduced approval times, of dhr as well as the mayor's budget office, and it

used to take, months, to get approval and now most hires and most requested new hires are approved by those two entities that within a week, we have also simplified and stream lined the internal process to get the staff on board and we looked at our recent payroll for the current year and analyzed it and analyzing the most recent payroll, and we are actually exceeding our salary budget by 1.6 million dollars and so we are on track to expand the full salary budget. which is why i am asking to have the money not be put on reserve and i appreciate the budget analyst saying, and not to penalize the department and the xwlon is there and we will have to come back again and provide more information and that is the additional step that i am going to avoid because we are on track to fill these positions and we will be close to fully extending our salary budget within our attrition budget. >> okay. so our budget analyst? >> okay, from the budget and

legislative office, and the reason that we made this recommendation and i will agree that the department has provided the information on the vacant positions and what their plans are is that we are projecting based on payroll through may, we saw a 6.8 million dollars in this year and there were positions that were approved by the board in 12/13 in the large number, and in addition, to the supplemental appropriation, and that did not filled on the permanent basis. and we are seeing, huge salary savings and we know going forward this will increase the mandates and enhance the services that the department is providing and we were very conservative in the recommended reduction in the department but we thought that the budget and finance committee needed to see during the course of the year, what was happening in terms of the department's ability to meet the mandate and the hiring requirements and we thought this was a reasonable way for them to do it. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues, any questions? >> for our budget analyst or

for mr. rore? >> okay. >> from my perspective, i am okay with the cuts, i am happy to not put it on reserve and to... and i appreciate the attention here. and i have talked with mr. rore frequently over the last few months over hiring and doing so and so i am okay not putting it on reserve and it will be my suggestion, because you are welcome to the comments or a motion. >> i would put it with the committee reserve. >> without putting it on reserve? >> yes. >> so supervisor avalos has made the recommendation to accept it and not to put it on reserve. >> do i have a second. >> okay, we will take that without objection. >> thank you. >> thank you. >> okay. so, next is the war memorial, and we actually came to an agreement last week from the controller's office that those

funds were going to take it all as general fund. and so we will reflect that in our final budget. so up next we have oewd. >> good afternoon, supervisors, office of workforce development last week we were in agreement with the budget analyst recommendations over the last week and we worked with the analyst on a revised set of recommendations and we are in agreement with the revised recommendations, and i do want to make one note, that the second recommendation is a downward substitution which is non-general fund support just to be clear with the committee as well as others. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues. any questions, could we go to mr. rose's report first? >> yes, mr. chairman, and members of the committee, on page 72 of our report, our recommended reduction to the proposed budget, 267,159, 14, 15, and that amount, 112,000

one time and 154,000 are ongoing and recommended reduction, 186 in 15 1/16 all of which are ongoing savings. >> okay. thank you, mr. rose. >> colleagues, any questions, or comments. >> okay, could i have a motion to accept the budget analyst recommendations? we have a motion by supervisor breed and a second by avalos and we can take that without objection. >> thank you. >> okay. >> it has for the sheriff's department. >> >> good afternoon, supervisors, and i would like to first thank the budget analyst and the budget office of the controller and we come here to report that we agree with budget analyst report, and look forward to moving forward. >> okay. >> thank you mr. sheriff. >> colleagues, no questions? mr. rose. >> a report that i handed out

this morning, i recommended reduction of the budget, 386,585 and of that amount, 258,000 are ongoing, and 128,000 ongoing, and these will increase of 13 points, or 7.4 percent and the department budget and we also recommended closing out prior year unextended funds that will allow, 104,000 for the general funds and so together the two recommendations 493,000 savings for the city general fund, and our recommended reductions to the proposed budget, 280,in 15/16, 254 are ongoing, 25,000 one time, and these reductions will allow an increase of 4.8 million or 2.5 percent in the budget, and the department is controlled with the revised recommendations. >> thank you, colleagues any questions for the sheriff or mr. rose on the sheriff's department report? >> supervisor avalos? >> yeah, just a question about,

thank you. just a question about reconfiguration of security services at general hospital, and i am told that there is a new program in place, and involves deputy sheriffs. and you know, i am wondering if there is any cost savings to be found in that? could you explain the new program? >> significantly, because it is not just the deputy sheriff but it is cadets we as a cadet class that learned fusing with the supervision and the satellite of public health locations as well too. and with the great collaboration, especially with the last seven months, between the department of public health sf general and ourselves, we have forged a plan quite frankly that i think should have been in existence long before my administration about satisfying the security services needs at the 24.2 acre campus at san francisco general and it is not just deputies

that afix a post solution of 24 acres of one per fix post and one rover but to inject a cadet level which is a significant savings when you look at the delta between the cadet class and this one deputy class, and we are quite pleased with the collaboration that has occurred with dph and i think that was a testament recently to a town hall meeting, if you will at sfgh, with their staff, and with ucsf president who has also been a strong assistance to us, and everybody, i think is feeling good about the direction that we are going. >> and there is a work order between dph, and the sheriff's department, for the services. and i don't have that entire department before you, but do you happen to know offhand what that is. >> i know what was budgeted was upwards to 3 let me ask. >> and i can get that for you.

if you would like? afterwards? >> i think that there was a policy recommendation? that we have been in the budget analyst report that was about reducing that work order? and i just want to make sure that is in this report or not? i hear from the legislative aid, but i wonder if there is any room to, i know that we made the program and plans in place and we have had the issues of security and i have visited the hospital and learned about the security issues that there are and i wonder if there is any recommended cost savings based on the budget analyst work, that you might know about? i have a figure before me, of that seems really large, but i want to see if there is any analysis that is behind it. mr. rose... >> mr. chairman and members of the committee, supervisor avalos, i don't believe that we have a recommended reduction in our report