cumbered. >> we think that is spending all the money in 2015-2016 that's the basis of our recommendation. >> thank you. >> colleagues, any questions or comments supervisor yee. >> yeah. >> i'm hearing the argument and certainly when it comes to encumbrance it based on what you are doing that and whether or not you're asking someone to contracting in june what money our spending and a lot of times when our encumbered it's

spending a budget in 6 months i'm not sure how it works with a contract is awarded in june or whatever it is whether we really actually should be using this year's budget or next year. >> so i'm in support of the idea we need to get more support in terms of pathways and the creation of office of economic workforce development i think in supervisor tang would like or like to make the suggestion a motion to put it on reserve i'll support it. >> commissioner keane. >> before we go on with the motion i want to visit with the

department any sort of room you know for a compromise amount on this right now i think from our prospective we hear there's a lot of services and we see that in all 11 districts with the funding at the same time, we're hearing from the budget analysts office those funds can't be spent down is there widen room to work with you. >> i think if the department will offer up a compromise you know, i building we'll look at it as a one-time reduction and not an ongoing reduction you know i'm taking the budget analyst comments and feel strongly about our departments ability to contract appropriately those services and deliver those important services but the department will be willing to do a one-time reduction of $250,000 to bridge

the difference here. >> okay. >> i know that's not wyoming wasn't our budget analyst is looking for but i'll be okay i know our office has done an incredible amount of work with oewd and in terms of the workforce training i don't want to see the lose of an academy a class i'll be okay with the $250,000 reduction lou but like to hear from the colleagues and is that in both line items is there too 5 hundred the house thousand dollars and other position on the one time there are $2,500,000. >> director. >> the departments preference is to split that evenly between

office of economic workforce development. >> no now, it's hundred 25 and hundred 25. >> so to be clear you're saying a two split and in year one 271. >> correct. >> colleagues comments supervisor tang was speaking. >> is there a motion. >> i'll put that in the form of a motion honor the 2 hundred 285 plus the 250 that's been accepted by the department. >> and make that in the form of another motion. >> major one and the year two a is. >> 171243. >> we have a motion is there a second seconded by supervisor

mar colleagues objections all. >> supervisor yee. >> we'll we'll take that without objection. >> thank you very much we have up next our city administrator. >> good afternoon. supervisors naomi kelly city administrator so for since we last talked we're in agreement with one time cuts of $268,000 plus and we're still in deductions we're not in agreement with 4 positions in the office of labor standards and enforcement in 292 which as we've dissolutions at

the last budget & finance hearing after the stakeholders holders with the oewd and the mayor's office looking at the task force and work with the workers alliance to address many of the different owners that are adopted and passed by the board of supervisors and the voters minimum wage formula retail and paid sick leave we feel those are the positions to enforce all the difference ordinances and we are in disagreement ever would the office of immigrant affairs in 1942 to help with the language transmissions and the language to cover more departments therefore a higher demand for transmission e translation services so for all the board of supervisors meeting in addition to agendas and

minutes so that's where we at. >> okay supervisor mar. >> i wanted to thank our city administrator mrs. kelly i'll strongly supportive of those 3 positions within the laborer of standard enforcement and thank you for the critical translation position that allows the staff to really fulfill the huge mandate we've been placing with the filipino and many of the other ones coming down the pipeline supervisor yee and supervisor tang have been working with me on the english speaking communities have that one this position is critical for all and i'll say from the strong community there's been victories ways of the staff but

also the increase in the minimum wage and others policies those principle administrative analyst and the positions are critical i'll urge support for mr. kelly's position and reject the budget analyst recommendations that'll i'll say thank you very much and the mayor's office and others in expanding the arts eco system in the city is critical i know for several years this board advocating with supervisor breed and others that the arts community to increase the pie and photos for the arts that is awarding money to organizations especially those in community of color it is appreciate i think $250,000 went to underserved

community that is the largest there we've received in a 55 years of grant for the arts it is appreciated but i think this is because of the budget analyst look closely at fund we're another this point where cultural equality is a common goal i know that significant amounts of money went to address the cost of living for the larger arts associations and some of the smaller groups expressing the concerns of larger organizations i know that with the san francisco foundation and mr. kelly and others terrorism we're hoping to come to agreement on the other hand on what does equality mean and the transfer of arts and the committee work together to expand the healthy arts commission thank you so much mr. kelly much progress made i know

there is work to do. >> absolutely thank you. >> colleagues, any questions or comments. >> for ms. kelly mr. rose, can we go to your report. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee the total revised instructions in 2015-2016157420 and 2016-2017458 plus arguments the first recommendation the hundred and 64 thousand dollars plus we saved this principle budget analyst position it is unnecessary to fulfill the programs mission and one 18 single budget analyst and compliance officers and compliance officers officer two the program anticipates the abilities of the current instead

of and for the $282,000 plus the contract experience it has 18 ftes and significant analytical capacities one 18 senior analysts and compliance officers and have you been that has vacancy positions filling those are vacancies will allow the program program so absorb the increase think about that supervisors you have 4 vacant positions if they fill the 4 vacant positions let's assume isn't that alone the justification for the notion on the last page place one new management assistant on reserve for the expansion of the relief program currently on hold the

department is requesting this position in anticipation of the programs expansion, however the expansion will likely not happen this year we don't recommend a cut but a reserve. >> thank you mr. rose colleagues, any questions. >> commissioner tang. >> thank you i don't have any questions i echo the comments that supervisor wiener made the i highly recommend the position given the work not only from our office but the colleagues in terms of language access i fully understand the idea of putting it on reserve given the pending that federal deportation relieve program, however last year current needs the department meetings needs to address and so i'll fully support of the positions and i don't know if supervisor mar made a motion

i'll recommend accepting those positions and taking the other cuts. >> okay supervisor tang made that motion ms. kelly to be clear and the controller we can handle this from a budget prospective supervisor yee. >> yeah. just quickly i wanted to also concur with supervisor tang and supervisor mar on the position that is asking for in terms of the translation and interpretation it is those services that we had a good job sometimes, we lack the number of people that are available and current that's current with the new demands we're putting forward in the new legislation we're going to need a few more people to handle a bigger load

i'll be supporting this piece. >> okay. so we have a motion by supervisor tang any deduction on that motion or do we have a second. >> seconded by supervisor mar we'll take that without objection. >> okay. thank you very much important public defender mr. duffey has been waiting here. >> good afternoon budget analyst has recommended 4 cuts we are fine with the equipment purchase cuts in 2015 2016 and 2016-2017. is two cuts we ask the

committee to reject is that the department increase the nutrition savings in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017375 in 2016-2017 >> we're also ask that the recommendation to remedy the substitution be rejected attrition that is set for our department and represents the amount of money we have to save in hiring details according to our 2015-2016 projection i've attached we know now with our actual vacancies and hiring processes are we're already $400,000 short in salaries if you add this this will create a

shortfall in 2015-2016 and 2016-2017 we'll have to be back here for a supplemental we went through a lot of time and effort to set the correct attrition amount i know that mr. rose said he'll eat his report with ketchup if we don't spend the money we had a record number of retirements over 18 people leave and next year 9 we're a relatively small department it is unfair no such cuts with the da or the city attorney both law departments each of those departments are salary saves this next chart shows the projected attraction next year we have a $400000 deficit we're going to have to make up but to add additional $200,000 will take us way over

the salary projections according to the may 2016 the city attorney has $1.1 million in savings and the da has 4 memorial day we have 406 why is the budget analyst over proposing the cuts to the salaries again, our increase is 3 percent of our budget while the district attorney is receiving a 4.5 percent we think we'll be brief but we have a manager one that is the chief of operations does the building and manages all the administrative staff and the department of hums the cost is $14,000 we've covered this by reducing our temporary salaries we're paying for this if you look at the

differences between the da the das budget is twice our budget they have 9 emissions that are higher than a manager one we have two manage positions for the entire department so again with all due respect to mr. rose's good work we ask this committee reject those two items and accept the other two. >> mr. duffey to be clear before mr. rose reports the total i want to hear from the cuts you're willing to accept. >> 15463. >> $15,000 plus. >> that's year two. >> that's correct i want to emphasis we're only getting a 3 percent increase it is relatively and i understand but to get the numbers over 3

years. >> i'm sure 13363 plus 2 thousand 645. >> okay. thank you. >> okay mr. rose, can we go to your report. >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee i want to start off by saying i say this sincerely i do i have the highest respect for the public defender there are no qualification but the public defender supervisors is not a budget analyst and let me now demonstrate why i can tell you he's not a budget analyst our analysts sitting next to me la toya took the time supervisors to loan to our hearing last year on the public defenders budget at last year's hearing the public defender told you at that

from the board of education approved the budget a budget analyst to increase the savings by 55 thousand dollars plus for 2014-2015 it would prevent the public defender from hiring staff for the legal education this on tape i'm not making this up you can loan to it yourselves the public defender said he'll have a deficit of $300,000 plus this is him testifying to you today he testified last year you'll have a similarly deficit in 2014-2015 and even without our recommended reduction of 55 thousand dollars i'm talking about last year's number to increase the attrition saves supervisors substantially mr. rawlinsfield issued a report in june subsequent to that hearing

showing that not only would the public defender not have a salary deficit but in fact have a salary surplus as of june of $558,000 don't believe the budget analyst but belief the controller that's what the controller statistics in the report we were dad right the gentleman was wrong and dead wrong today if you accept our current recommendation to increase the attrition by 26701 we are projecting the public defender will is a salary sewer surpass this is after the fact the public defender can higher at

will our recommendation will have no impact whatsoever in reducing the services levels >> yes. mr. chairman, and members of the committee we've recommended an approval of what the public defender is requesting one new attorney and one new position to address the video retrieval we've recommended for 4 attorneys and one legal assistant that are preservation vacant on july 2015 the requesting requested substitution for manage one to manage 3 which we recommended against relies it simply results in a 15.8 percent salary increase for that staffer member which we believe is not justified we believe that staff member has diets beyond the

position one i ask that a substitute instead of a 15 but a 7 percent salary increase our overall recommendations are a total of 277282 in 2015-2016 and 293242 in 2016-2017 irrespective how you review our report today the one thing is i think subject u susceptible we have on tape what mr. the gentleman said last year and prove we were right we're telling you the same thing today. >> thank you mr. rose. >> mr. duffey do you want to comment. >> we have a double jeopardy it didn't apply to every budget i

think mr. rose has said this our job to figure out what the departments needs next year now as i pouted every department had salary saves what has changed a new policy for the mayor's office that didn't hold up for hiring the second thing is that mr. rose will raise this argument i brought a copy of the attrition and terms from last year as you can see last year, we have 18 terminations a record number of retirements, however, this year we only have 9 and much lower level positions so the issue is whether or not our salaciously savings are for the next year we can clear should if even from the attrition is it

kept the same we'll have a $400000 diversity and interestingly last week mr. rose said the gentleman can't hire 3 attorneys by july 1st, i told this committee and mr. rose's analyst we have the hiring process we've got them selected they asked us to provide letters which we do and the attorneys were hired so mr. rose was wrong so, now he's changed his report to now say well, why not reduce the attrition anyway no analysis that support that i have the analysis as you can see the positions we have either resignations or terminations or

retirement we have the salary shortfall of 4 hundred thousand. >> mr. chair and members he is correct we were wrong and based on the information we've changed recommendation but the gentleman is telling you just the way he said last year he said he was definitely he couldn't absorb a salary cut but he ended up with a big sewer mrs. he's telling you he can't absorb the attrition saves we're telling you he can. >> right but this is a new recommendation they didn't make the recommendations last week and i believe this was because i

proved their budget analyst wrong and they wanted to cut but not only by $260,000 but add more next year we'll be the only department supposedly after working with mr. rose's office and got $270,000 more cuts between week one and two. >> i'm about to call an end to this back and forth mr. rose. >> supervisor yee. >> sir a year ago if you had come in here what would have been our projected number of people recinco de mayo or retiring or whatever. >> your projecting 7 for this - >> future year. >> i believe last year somewhere in the neighborhood of 9 to 10 and like i said there are two things that effected the

salary savings one is that there were details in hiring due to the fact we had to get requisitions approved through the mayor that policy was changed, and, secondly we had additional retirements and resignations we didn't anticipate a number of attorneys who were out on ma mentor leaves the district attorney had half a million we s have $500,000 in savings where w why are those proposed cuts made against the city attorney and the da it is not fair. >> let me finish my question. >> so similar you lived with

predicted around 9 or 10 left for a variety of reasons and i guess about 50 percent of the 18 were unpredictable. >> through it is more like 20 over and over 25 percent arrest you said 9 to 10 or 18 left. >> yeah. 18 this year and 9 next year. >> next year. >> okay. >> it was 7. >> in 2015-2016 i think you asked me how many we had; right? and 18. >> last year 18 this year we're proposing 9. >> i see i guess my question so i could get - >> first place here a year ago and we asked the question how many could you predict will actually this year you're saying

7 or 9 what would you have said last year for 2015-2016. >> based on what i knew then and yes. >> i'd have to go back and look i can find out we submitted a list of list of terms nation and retirements last year as well we're bagging our salaries projections based on what we know now that's the better carrot for our salary savings and because there were changes you're saying now even the ones leaving you can fill those positions quicker. >> it used to be every position in city government 90 in addition to getting the