in the same year that was being transferred. if anybody can prove me wrong to the contrary, let me know. >> supervisor cohen: it would be mr. herrera. >> i'm sorry. >> one thing that was pointed out to me. couple of years ago we started doing lawyer work here. i we have lawyers that handled lawyers law work. never came back and look for additional funding for that either. that is going to be consumed within this unit that is going to be -- >> supervisor cohen: we've got some questions here that i want to get some clarity on. i want to go back to the state legislation. it passed out of committee 31-0 and frankly i believe expected to pass. what are the implications of this legislation passing?

what are the implications going to on city county of san francisco? >> it's hard to predict. my understanding of that legislation, i don't pretend to be an expert on it, it will expand the definitions of who can be conserved. there will be an increase in the population if they need help. it expands the definition who can be conserve. that would lead more work on top of the 500 cases existing now with the current definition. >> supervisor cohen: i need to take a moment. i have not read the legislation. i'm going to ask in my aide bring me a copy of it. i will review it. the b.l.a. believes this position is budgeted for next fiscal year. does that give enough time for

you and your lawyers to address a staffing issue in the future? i actually think that there's a lot of credence to the argument made. you're asking for three positions. is that right? >> i am. >> supervisor cohen: i think that the b.l.a. made recommendation of denying one. maybe we put it on reserve and come back and revisit it. i don't know what the exact is. i do think that it's like -- you know when you buy goldfish and you got to put if in the water and you put if in a bigger tank. you know what i'm talking about dennis? >> i'm listening. >> supervisor cohen: for the rest of the folks who have kids. you can't take a goldfish and introduce it into the new environment otherwise it goes in shock. >> you raised a valid point. some january 1, my one lawyer

will be introduced and they're not going to have any transition what so ever. there's no walk up what so ever. they're going to have to hit the ground running. they will be shocked like that little goldfish you're talking about. >> supervisor cohen: i didn't quite picture you as the little goldfish. okay, it wasn't quite the case. you're creative. do you have to hire for these positions? >> i do. >> supervisor cohen: you don't have someone already in mind? >> no. >> supervisor cohen: how long does it take for you to identify, offer -- >> that depends on the circumstance. let's assume for the sake of argument i get one position on january 1st. i could do that in advance. i can prepare for it to have the individual come on beginning of january. then i'm left with an incredible -- i have one person in the office that might understand it. might not. i don't know what kind of

recruits i'll get or talent. number one. >> supervisor cohen: i would imagine you'll be recruiting and signing on the best of the best. >> hopefully. >> supervisor cohen: do you have space for new staff? >> physical space you mean? yes. absolutely. if we follow the budget analyst recommendation, i can't do any other recruiting for a second position. we'll be back here next year. it maybe you'll approve somebody. maybe you won't. if you do, then i have to wait until july of next year to see if you approve somebody. i have to go out and recruit somebody and get a position and they have to ramp up. i may lose a whole year. whereas, if i know i can hire somebody in july of '19, which i'm willing to accept, i can use that six month period to identify and graduate in an identify another individual that i can hire on that date and they can hit the ground running.

>> supervisor cohen: what's the strategy we hire thre two attors it's a workload is only for one. what do you do with that extra attorney? >> i can tell you, we are not going to have -- there's enough workload for two lawyers. there's more under the existing scenario. there's more than enough work. there's enough work for two lawyers. the budget analyst says there's .5 lawyers and .4 legal assistants. if that was enough, they'll be do doing enough job that you thought you didn't need to transfer that work to the handle. it seems to me that instead of focusing on what the increase is, you should focus what do you need to do the job right. perhaps district attorney, latitude given to him to hire, three people instead of having

.9 people. maybe we wouldn't be in the position where we are now. it's our professional assessment that i need three people to do the job right. i think that we have a plan in place in terms of graduating it up and transitioning where we can meet your desires. >> or maybe supervisor if the district attorney had been provided with this 1.1 additional positions, maybe he could have done the job in a better fashion. that's what our recommendation is. in other words, you're saying that he had less staff, you need more staff. we're agreeing with you that you need more staff we're just saying increase it by 133% instead of 233%. >> i don't think that's enough to do the job right. i have fundamental disagreement. >> supervisor cohen: i appreciate that. we'll stop the match there.

maybe somebody can quantify for me how much is one fte? what is the total cost? >> let's look. >> salary of full time attorney? >> supervisor cohen: $207,117 close to $300,000 a year. >> the budget analyst ensuring he's telling you that that is a step 16, $207,000 is the top step of our budget. i don't know if i'm going to hire based on that level of experience. i don't know if i'm going to hire them at step 16 or step 10. >> supervisor cohen: calm down. take a breath for a minute. what do you envision yourself

hiring at what level? what professional level is needed in order to execute and manage this case load? >> i haven't interviewed anybody. >> supervisor cohen: it's not driven by who you interview, it's driven by you have an idea. i have an idea on the skill set. >> i'm looking to -- >> supervisor cohen: you are looking to hire someone that's step 16? >> not necessarily. i might have someone that's hiring at lower level. i can't say that now. >> supervisor cohen: maybe you do need little bit more time to be able to -- >> it's not about the time supervisor. i'm not disputing time that i hire one january 1, 2019 and ramped up to hire someone in july 2019. i don't dispute that at all. what i am disputing is the fact that number of positions that

are being approved. the delay that is going to occur if i have to come back here next year to ask for more support. i have to say with all due respect to the budget analyst, he'd be the first one to tell you to listen to what we had to say. i don't have any guarantee of that. we may have a fundamental disagree a year from now. >> supervisor cohen: i'm interested to hear what your ladies had to say. both of them had numbers. let's see what they got to say. hi. >> hi supervisors. i was going to elaborate about the fte. for fiscal year 18-19, projected

cost $179,261. for fiscal year 19-20 -- this is because we agreed to adjustments in the mayor's fee. there's a separate adjustment of $25,000. in fiscal year 19-20, we are projecting $612,321. this includes $74,000 adjustment. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor sheehy. >> supervisor sheehy: when i was in the d.a. office, misdemeanor attorneys would not have 500 cases. 500 cases is a lot of cases.

that is unusually high degree of cases. my question for the city attorney is, litigation, how many cases someone litigate simultaneously -- i know it varies. you can have very complex. when your fighting sanctuary city you have a team of attorneys. how many cases could an attorney over the course of the year litigate? >> i would say this, the nature of a criminal practice is very different than civil practice. there was no one in my office not one person that has a case load of 500 cases, 250 cases or 100 cases. not one. civil cases are different. for me, i know in the criminal realm it's different. i would say in our office, i don't know any of our civil lawyers that has a case load of

more than say at the most would be 30 or 40. >> supervisor sheehy: we had the director of public health here, couple of months ago describing a situation where single individual have been 51, 50 over hundred times before they had that individual conserved. you do a little math. $3000 a night, three nights, 100 times plus and pretty close to a million dollars. this comes back to kind of the arc i was -- argument i was making about law enforcement. another data point. we had an individual who was unsuccessful by an attorney. district attorney is not enough. this individual there was an attempt top conserve. it failed. year ago he shot his mom to death in my district. we need to start looking at this scale on a little different way.

is this a place with might be willing to overshoot with expectations that we'll have a law in place at the state that will dramatically increase the case load and facilitate conservativeship. i see people walking everyday that need to be conserved. it's mystery to me why they're still on the streets. i think two attorneys is the bear minimum myself. when you look at the case load, you look at the social impact of what we're seeing. you look at the economic impact on this city. think about every time someone has to take someone in and 51-50. they have to load them in an ambulance, take them to general and pay for them to be there for three nights. this goes on again and again. i see these folks get out. they are stabilized. we tried to address this with the breaking cycle legislation.

reality is, we have people on the streets who should be conserved. bowl this is a civil action. it appropriately belongs in the city attorney office. this is civil litigation. the district attorney did not deploy the adequate amount of sophisticated resources to address this problem. i think that's obvious to all of us. that's why we made the policy decision to move this function into the city attorney's office. i think an interesting idea to explore capturing cash back from the district attorney for the work we're doing there. starting this off without giving adequate resources to get the job done to make a difference for the city, to make a difference on our streets i think it's penny and pound foolish. >> supervisor cohen: i agree with you. only thing with district attorney still continuing with the criminal cases.

this function is still carrying another element to the function. we'll be dealing with the district attorney tomorrow. today we're talking about the city attorney. the b.l.a. believes since the position is budgeted for the next fiscal year, if necessary we can address that issue then. i still think that that's reasonable. people are saying no. tell me why. >> supervisor stefani: when i voted to change this from the district attorney office to the city attorney office, that vote also came with the express intent to add positions to the offices of the city attorney to handle this work. i do trust that the city attorney and having been an attorney and worked as a prosecutor i trust that the case load you will get requires the attorneys that you're asking for. based on my experience, leads me

to believe that i should be siding with the city attorney on this. >> supervisor cohen: okay, i appreciate that. supervisor yee you want to weigh in? no comment from supervisor fewer. for now. supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: i think you did mention possibility of putting one position on reserve. can means it would be budgeted. it's a matter coming back for the city attorney come back and say, look, here's the numbers. let's move on. i'm more than willing to do that. >> supervisor cohen: is that it? i don't know if there's anyone here in the chamber. can someone talk about the state

legislature and what they are thinking with with this legislation. doesn't sound like anyone here who can talk about. it's still unclear to me. when that expansion of conservatorship. win we're going to experience it. is -- is a transitioning? >> it does not go into effect. it's not an automatic -- it's a legislation statewide that the

county would have to pass along the legislation. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor sheehy and then supervisor fewer. >> supervisor sheehy: with all due respect to my colleagues, i would like to see this legislation rejected and make a motion to do that and provide the city attorney with the resources necessary point to echo supervisor stefani's comment. again, i just come to the point, it may not be true for other previews. within my district, i see people who need to be conserved. the fact that we don't have capacity to do so is costing the city money. it's costing taxpayers money. to me, when with you talk about the state legislation, the analysis that the city attorney

to determine staffing specifically did not evaluate what the impact would be on the function if that law passed or did not pass. this was solely based on looking at 500 cases coming over from the district attorney's office. 500 cases is a lot of cases. how much time everyday individuals have going to spend on a case if they have 500? this is complex litigation. people would contest this. that is a huge case load for a single individual. just from a simple human, perspective, we have sick people on our street who need to be in position where they are getting better. it's not humane to delay this. it's not economically wise to delay this. i would like to make a motion

that we reject b.l.a. suggestion and provide the city attorney with the resources he needs to do the function. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i have a question for the b.l.a. you mentioned that we would have to opt into this state legislation. it is an automatic that san francisco would be participating? is that correct? then at that time, we can actually allocate funds for an additional attorney? is that correct? thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: folks, there's a motion that's open that's on the floor. motion made by supervisor sheehy to reject the b.l.a. amendment. folks do you want to take that roll call. looks like it will pass

unanimous. >> thank you supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: you're welcome. >> we need a motion to accept the recommendation to the city attorney was in agreement with. >> supervisor cohen: excuse me. >> there is a second reduction that the budget analyst that the suggested that the city attorney does agree with. make a motion to take that cut. >> supervisor cohen: make a motion that the b.l.a. and city attorney are in agreement. thank you. >> thank you supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: chief. >> good afternoon chair cohen. i'm making sure we have a quorum still. >> thank you so much. san francisco fire department. i like to acknowledge and thank the budget legislative analyst office in addition to mr. rose who i have great amount of respect for. i like to report that we agreed

on everything and reached consensus on all but one item. it's the core function what we do. we're not asking for additional positions. it's an equipment item. we feel very strongly that it is something that needs to be funded in order to be able to meet our mission statement. it's sort of ironic that i stand here in that four years ago, the department received lots and lots of criticism. we had a target on our back. i certainly felt the target on my back as it related to the provision of prehospital care. which we need ambulances to do that work. one thing i'm excited about, supervisor cohen we spoken about. supervisor yee you're a huge champion of vision zero. we've set aside some funds. we need funds $700,000 next fiscal year not beyond to purchase ambulances. there was a period of time where

because of the way the economy was, we were not able to purchase ambulances. what we've done since 2016 is set aside approximately $700,000, four additional ambulances to purchase. there's been hiatus on purchasing those ambulances. making them more agile and in line with vision zero goals. we know that our population is not decreasing. it's increasing as is our call volume. we're piloting a new version of an ambulance. it's not without some controversy. there are some members that think it's too small. in our opinion, it's something we need to embrace more. i didn't want it to be just my plan. for. five month period of time, we've demoed in these ambulances. i have a graphic that might be

able to help you. >> supervisor cohen: put it on the overhead. give the chief the overhead. >> this is our current ambulance that has been in operation for a number of years. my whole 29 years career. then in 1997 when we brought the paramedic division over. the department change but the ambulance did not change. this is the one here which is a sprinter model that we're looking at and piloting to purchase. there's a reason why we held off on purchasing, we wanted to give employees that work on those ambulances the opportunity to provide feedback. not only are they more fuel efficient, environmentally friendly, they're also smaller profile. >> supervisor cohen: you said that you heard some feedback that it was too small. it's obvious that it's more compact. there's few more added benefits

than being compact. too small in what way? it hampers someone's ability to save a life or resuscitate a life? too small is because the person is 6'6" and don't fit comfortable in? >> it's smaller than current one we're operating in. some of it's constructive and some of it's to your point. we have to have a model that suits the average size employee. i can tell you i driven both and from the driver's perspective, it is much more compact to drive and to get around the tight city streets. what i want to do, i'm not someone working on a patient making sure that experience works well for the parent and the employee. that's the feedback we're getting. some of the feedback is in the

back compartment when you're providing patient care which a is tight. i'm a firm believer, with modifications maybe able to address those issues. the greater point that we are in disagreement on is the fact we need to maintain the funding in both fiscal years. happy to answer any questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much chief. let's see what the b.l.a. has to say. >> madam chair. >> supervisor cohen: mr. rose. >> madam chair. members of the committee, i recommended reductions to the proposed budget. all one time savingses reductions still allow increase $15.7 million, 4.12%. we recommend closing out prior

year $45,707. i recommend reduction for proposed budget in 19-20. of that amount, 96, 634. these reductions will still allow increase. as i understand it, the fire department concurs recommended reduction except for the ambulances on page 81 of our report. i will just briefly summarize that recommendation supervisors. in fiscal year 2018-2019. the department only requested four ambulances. it only included funds for eight

ambulances. our recommendation will provide funds for the four ambulances that department requested. it's slightly different types but basically it's consistent with the number of request four. in fiscal year 19-20 we recommend disapproval until the department's pilot program is completed and determination should be made to determine which type of ambulances should be included in 2019-2020. >> supervisor cohen: do we need clarifications from the b.l.a. >> thank you chair cohen. let me say this is 15th time i approached for a budget. sometimes i've been criticizedder not asking for enough. i think all of you, i come to you with a reputation of someone that only ask for what we need.

i'm telling you as an operational expert, this is what we need. mr. rose is correct. we received funding for four. we ask for more than four. but that's we received funding for. just -- just a few statistics, we have 58 ambulances in our fleet. all used for front line operations. of those 58 ambulances, 23 or 40% are over ten years old. they average 165,000 miles. those are hard miles driven often times through our city streets which are difficult to navigate through. fire department has -- we do anticipate seeing this come down. we spent over a million dollars on ambulance repair alone in fiscal year 2017. that shows you the wear and tear on these ambulances and the need to continue to be able to be more nimble and to be responsive to the increase calls. recent history just four years

ago, we received nothing but criticism for not being able to have proper equipment. we're team players. we have dealt with men and women of the fire department, they do great work on maintaining the apparatus. for a department our size with the call volume over 150,000 calls a year of which north of 75% are medical calls involving ambulances, we need this. we're not asking for additional positions. it's a core function equipment that we need. >> supervisor cohen: can we go to the overhead and put the two ambulances on the screen? sfgov tv, can you pick that up? colleagues when i look at this picture, i see technology advancing and moving forward. on the screen on the left, we have the sprinter. that's the dvr and the big box of the ambulance on the right is like a vcr. i way see it, we are not

recording our programming vcr anymore. time and technology are advancing. i think it's incredibly important for our department to have the quintessential tools that they need in order to do the best of their ability. i believe we've become more efficient with our technology. this is like the physical manifestation of 21st century technology. i'm leaning towards i like the idea of a lean agile sprinter of unit. i think that it is where the department needs to be going. i have not heard from 798 pointed to acknowledge in. they haven't reached out. because i haven't heard i will interpret that as they are neutral on the issue.

chief, i want to encourage you and your department to really depart from the way of the 20th century and move in direction that is more congruent with the vision zero. with the vision that san francisco is laid out. we got more people coming. we got an aging population which means people are crossing the streets. we got people who may not be familiar with the systems here. i believe that this sprinter is the direction we need to be going. i hope you will take this message to your commission as well as to your members that this is the direction that i want to see the fire department move into. i think it's in the best interest ever our entire city. the other thing that i heard, i heard that the department would prefer to purchase -- sfgov tv, you can put the camera back on me -- the fire department has mentioned that they prefer to purchase everything all at one time. that sounds like when you go to

costco, you're buying in bulk because you're able to get a better deal. is that correct analogy? >> sort of. i appreciate your feedback. sometimes there was carbon paper and liquid paper when i came into the department many years ago. still, when everyone embraced technology, i couldn't agree with you more about moving forward. i would generally change is difficult. i would multiply for 50 for the san francisco fire department. it is time to move things forward and appreciate your acknowledgement of that. >> supervisor cohen: i appreciate your acknowledgement you.net want to make this a top-down push. you're surveying your folks, you're surveying the people. >> it's important. >> supervisor cohen: i'm giving you my opinion. i appreciate hearing that you are soliciting the patterns of others. >> definitely. that's how it will work to get that by. sometimes i do feel like it's trying to turn the titanic in the department.

we are mindful of people feedback. to answer your question, we are playing catch up. there were a number of years we were not able to regularly -- i like the idea regular basis purchasing fleet. it wasn't until under the administration of mayor lee, he embraced the concept of having a multiyear fleet replacement plan. which we do have. but the bulk of that funding is for truck. we've been playing catch up. we intend to purchase the number of ambulances that we need to replace. >> supervisor cohen: when do you plan to do this? you've been sitting on a quite a large nest egg if you will. you haven't drawn down on that. >> right. that was when we had to go through the process to get these sprinters in and certify as a pilot program. then we have the period of time by which the employees are

basically test driving. we still have a contract for the big box ambulances. i want to move things forward. i rather not do that. we anticipate once we get the feedback we would order a large number of these sprinter ambulances. to the tune of 21 i believe in the first year. >> supervisor cohen: when do you plan to make this purchase? >> i will call cfo up. >> supervisor cohen: if i'm not mistaken, the sprinters are even cost less than the more traditional ambulances? >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: half the cost. >> not quite. we're saying 175 for the current big box model and between 110, 115 for the sprinter model. not to mention the savingses that we'll yield in fuel. >> good afternoon supervisor. we currently have our regular big box contract and that will be extended through the end of

next fiscal year. >> supervisor cohen: does that mean -- what are you thinking? are you think being extending it? >> yes, we are thinking about extending it. there's no obligation to purchase. it will allow us the opportunity to do so. it's a multiyear contract that was negotiated through the office of contract administration few easier ago. we'll have the option to extend it through the end of fiscal year 2019. we've been working on this pilot program. it's been vetted and approved. they handled the procurement of the smaller ambulances that uzoh there. we would then discuss and move forward with the office contract administration on brigade for whatever type of ambulance.

>> supervisor cohen: make that simple. when are you going to buy these sprintsers? >> we would anticipate ordering them late fall current calendar year. >> supervisor cohen: when do you anticipate them being on our possession and operational? >> it's generally three to four months for construction. we would anticipate in the spring of 2019. >> supervisor cohen: are there improvements that we need to assume a base model, certain specks that they will be building to our request? >> absolutely. the ones that we're testing, those are the base model. through the course of feedback from members, if there's some equipment that we use, there's some modifications we could put in. it's not shifting the entire ambulance. it's more modification on

cabinets and spacing. >> supervisor fewer: my question is, getting it back to the budget. i see that you have $1.4 million in carryover. i understand you need to buy from our discussions with the department, that you need to buy ten new vehicles and that we're hoping you're going to be buying after the discussion about do, vision zero compatible ambulances and fiscal year 2018-2019. what the b.l.a. is suggesting, you would still be able to buy 16 compatibl1616 ambulances. i feel like there's disconnect about why you need $700,000

because the b.l.a. report actually says, that this amount the carry forward is $1.4 million would allow you to buy 16 vision zero compatible vehicles. you said you needed ten. it seems to exceed over what you need. >> i'm not clear where the ten is coming from. >> supervisor fewer: i think my staff had a conversation with your staff. >> okay. we have 58 that work everyday in the city. 16 is like a quarter. we have 23 of our oldest ambulances that average 165,000-mile. 16 is a good number. we would like to ramp it up to replace those 23. those are models that people are working on day in and day out. it's a very rough ride in not only for the members but for the

patients we're carrying in the back. we would like to accelerate the purchase to replace those 23. that's what the additional funding -- funding that we have requested in the budget. >> supervisor fewer: you're saying that you will carry forward $1.4 million to buy 16 of them? >> supervisor cohen: the carry forward for the $1.5 million only would yield 16. it won't yield 23. >> supervisor fewer: i know that. my question is, then for the additional -- you need 23. for additional seven. >> we figured about six per $700,000. they're about $115,000 a piece. >> supervisor fewer: you want to purchase 23. that's why you need extra $700,000. already this will give you 16 of them? >> we're behind the curve. to get up to replace those 23 of

our oldest ambulances is average 165,000-mile. we've been spending over a million dollars on to keep them on the streets. we think it's a good investment, yes. it would be 22 if i did the math correctly. we would be close to that 23. if we go with the sprinter model which i'm getting direction that's the way you like to see. yes, then we'll be holding our own if you will. the wear and tear on these vehicles is extreme. >> supervisor fewer: could i hear from the b.l.a. for a second? hi. we heard from the chief there's a need. do we do assessment on the need of the vehicles that the fire department would actually need? >> going back to our audit emergency medical services few years ago, which is one of the

issues that was raised at the time. we do agree with their replacement plan for ambulances. i would say more specifically that is changed in the budget where they're selecting different kind of ambulance to try out. we thought in the process of that, that they could not continue to purchase the larger ambulances while they were trying out the smaller ambulance. we don't see as reduction and replacement plan. it'san alternative. >> supervisor fewer: you agree with the chief that 23 is the number. >> i would say that. over the last several years there have been ambulances in the budget as part of ongoing replacement plan. as part of that, we have look at the that every year and agreed that was necessary. this year while we're making the recommendation is different, they had four ambulances replacement plan. they still have ambulances in

the replacement plan. it's the sprinters. which i believe is little less expensive. we thought they were maintaining it. >> supervisor fewer: i see. you thought there were two streams. one was they were going to also not just by the -- they were going to buy their regular ambulances to. >> our recommendation those would not be in the budget. >> so we're good? >> yes, we are. >> supervisor fewer: just the opposite what i said. >> i know, no disrespect. just trying to bring little humor. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer, did you have questions? >> supervisor fewer: no. >> supervisor cohen: incident to go -- i want to go back to the

b.l.a. you made recommendations on the cuts. i want to understand little bit more on the cuts. there's disagreements with the cuts are. >> we have no disagreement. we're in agreement with the exception of the item we spent some time on. we're good with that. we appreciate team players. >> supervisor cohen: let me see if i can wrap this up. sounds like there's universal acceptance for the cuts. thank you for the b.l.a. for that. we can provide you some direction for you and commission for the consideration that we hear you a you need ambulances. but we want sprinters. they are more cost efficient and more fuel efficient and in line with vision zero which is three important principles that governs san francisco. i like to introduce this as a motion. i want to make a recommendation that we accept the b.l.a. cut. i also would like to just add

that the pilot program -- excuse me, the department purchase 16 vision zero compatible ambulances using their carry forward. >> we agree with all the cuts but the $700,000. that would be independent of what we had agreed on. we feel like $1.4 million will be used for 16 and the $700,000 catch us to number closer to the 23 that we need to replace. we need 700k. >> supervisor cohen: i think that this would allow you to make -- to purchase 16 sooner and update the fleet in a more expedited manner. >> yes to the 1.4 that has been

set aside with some of our ambulance revenue. what we're braining forward to you today, we will continue to have to play catch up. we feel it is a core function that we need $700,000. 2014 again, i don't want to remind you, everybody knows it was very much a target on our back that we did not have the equipment. we're making good progress. we feel like we need to continue. we will spend that 1.4. we're embracing this new sprinter model that is not just my decision. i want it to be collaborative. we will spend that 1.4 that's been on the books. we need to continue the trend of the replacing. >> supervisor cohen: i know, the it's total cost of $700,000 the older model. it's not the sprinter.

>> no. the four big box, they're $175,000 each. what we like to do is use the 1.4 to purchase 16 sprinter model and moving forward in next year, year after, additional simple if you will. that we are closer to replacing those 23 that i talked about that are old and tired. they reached beyond their shelf life. >> supervisor cohen: to the b.l.a. -- >> i want to do clarification. what you have before you are ate alternatives. you can accept our recommendation. you can request that the fire department use previously appropriated funds of $1.4 million to purchase 16 sprinters. there's also in the budget the four additional sprinters. that would be 20 ambulances, 20 sprinters. or, you can accept our recommendation request the

department to purchase eight ambulances with the $1.4 million and four sprinters. you would get 12 ambulances. you can get 20 sprinters with our recommendation or 12 total ambulances with our recommendation. that's our recommendation. >> i'm not following on the 20. >> 20 would come out of that $1.4 million. the 16 out of the $1.4 million -- >> it gives you 16. i think what you're saying, the additional four i'm fuzzy on. >> the problem with our math, your budget is listed at 85. >> 110 to 115. >> important thing to remember

in addition to the $1.4 million carry forward fund that the department allocated $340,000 to purchase four more sprinters we're recommending approval of. even if you take our recommendation, $1.4 million in carry forward. that's 16 sprinters, plus four more sprinters that we're recommending approval of. >> it wouldn't pay for four more sprinters. >> supervisor cohen: number forwarded to b.l.a. is incorrect number. do you need more time to go back and recalculate? >> the ones that we're piloting currently i'm told $115,000. >> it's $340,000 for four which i can check my math. >> it would be $85,000. >> that was our understanding how much it would cost. >> supervisor cohen: sounds like the understanding of the a sprinter cost is incorrect.

b.l.a. thought the cost of the sprinter was at $85,000. the fire department is telling me that it's closer to $115,000. >> it's in the budget at $85,000 each. that may pose a problem for that. >> supervisor cohen: right. >> if you agreeing that $1.4 million covers 16 sprinters, the unit cost would be about $115,000. maybe that's disconnect right? >> i think i get 16 number what mark told me. he's using that number. regardless, i think the point is that carry forward funds purchases certain number of ambulances. we're also recommending approval of $340,000 they're going to use to purchase four more sprinters. we're recommending approval of that. >> supervisor cohen: we will

take that recommendation. >> supervisor fewer: $1.4 milli. b.l.a. suggested you can buy four of them for $340,000. we know that's the current cost for four. right? what is actual cost for four? [please stand by, captioners transitioning].

>> i agree with you. as a matter of fact, it's 2:00, so this is what we're going to do: we're going to take a recess, and in that recess, chief, the b.l.a. and the budget office, i want you guys to all get together, and we will rework these numbers. we will recon convenient at 2:45, and we will

>> supervisor cohen: everybody welcome back. we are going to come back into session, and we are going to pick back up where we left off with our fire department, and i first wanted to hear from the budget and legislative analyst's office, give them an opportunity to present some of the new data. >> actually, it's not new data. basically, the department over the last couple of years started on a retention plan. the budget as we got it, it's only three ambulances for the sprinter in the coming year. so what they had was four regular ambulances and three sprinters in the budget, the funding for those, too. so as i understand it, the department is now reconsidering and thinking of doing -- of

using -- purchasing sprinters in total. >> supervisor cohen: that's right. >> it's 1.4 million from the prior two years that's outstanding that would have purchas purchased two ambulances in each year. it's four a year, so it would be eight of the old ambulances. >> supervisor cohen: eight of the old and how many of the year. >> so it would be six peryear of the new, or 12. >> supervisor cohen: say that one more time. >> six peryear, or 12. >> supervisor cohen: okay. in year one, six a year, and then in year two, another six. >> yes, so you would get 12 out of the carry forward. our recommendation would give you an additional three because we're saying you don't need to fund the old ambulances anymore because you're not purchasing them -- at least that's our understanding. however, if the committee wanted to continue purchasing four, which is the replacement

plan that's been in place for several years -- and that's how we're looking at this. >> supervisor cohen: and you are in agreement with the replacement plan? >> yes, we are. and every single year, we've been looking at the replacement plan. one of the things the committee could consider doing is purchasing three this year, using the sprinters, which is our recommendation. if the committee wanted to revise our recommendation and have enough funds for four ambulances this year, we would then recommend reducing our cuts by $115,000 to allow for another ambulance. so instead of a reduction of 700,000 in this year, it would be a reduction of -- thank you, harvey, 575 -- really, 585, i think. so that would be an alternative reduction if you wanted to maintain that four ambulances peryear replacement schedule. >> supervisor cohen: okay. say that one more time. what would be an alternative? >> so right now, our recommendation not counting the prior two year carry forward would allow sufficient funds to

purchase three sprinters. >> supervisor cohen: sprinters. >> if the committee wanted to maintain this four ambulance peryear replacement and have the four ambulances in the budget year of 18-19, then we would recommend, rather than a reduction of 700,000, which is what we recommended, that the reduction be 585,000, and this would provide additional funds for four ambulances to be budgeted in 18-19. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. chief? >> i'm going to try and be as simplistic as possible. we have an old, tired fleet of ambulances. even though we purchased 19 to play catch up in 2014, the average amount of miles on those 19 that are just four years old exceed 70,000. right around 70,000. right now we know 53 of our

front line ambulances that run 125, 130,000 calls peryear, 23 have an average of 160,000 miles. these are the prehospital transport units that take very sick people to the nine receiving hospitals. we fully -- and we appreciate what you're saying. it's something that i'm very proud of as i look forward. you gave the analogy of the d.h.s. versus the d.v.r., moving into the future with technology and embracing that. we've identified models. again, it wasn't my decision, we wanted it to be a collaborative one. we think the sprinter would be a good fit for san francisco. we'd be appreciative of the 15. we think on our spreadsheet, the first half of the sheet there's no disagreement on, the purchase of the 15. it seems like a lot of vehicles, and it is, and we appreciate that. but what we're saying is we have 23 that should be and have been recommended to retire. so we feel that we will, this year, will be able to put forward 15, but in order to get

back on track and to embrace this fleet replacement plan, we would like to purchase another four to six every year, so that's what that 700 gives us moving forward into the next two years. so that 15 plus six, if we get the 700,000, will put us in the neighborhood of 21, close to the 23 that we need to replace. so next year, we purchase six, and it gets us closer. we know that ambulances four years old in this city, already having 70,000 miles on them, just around the corner, we're going to need to replace those as well. we're trying to plan for the future. it's very clear in my mind, and it's ironic that four years ago we were being criticized because we could not meet our response times because our ambulances were breaking down. we're trying to aligned with vision zero, we're trying to more efficient. these will be more environmentally friendly, and

trying to get from point a to point b. we're not asking for f.t.e.'s, we're just trying to appeal to you as the operational expert. i've been doing this for 15 years. sometimes i receive criticism because i don't fight for our department enough. i'm telling you, this is not flux. there's not flux there. we need these pieces of equipment, and i appreciate your decision. i know you have very difficult decisions to make. >> supervisor cohen: all right. in one of the handouts of you've given us, you request an allocation of 700,000, and i did not realize it then, but i certainly realize it now. i don't know if other colleagues were also under the same impression that i was, that it was a $700,000 cut just one time. excuse me -- not $700,000 cut, but a $700,000 allocation over

two years, which brings it up. is that your understanding in. >> that's my understanding, too. and with this -- this $1.4 million allocation over two years -- >> it will yield an additional 12 ambulances, so that would be 27 -- we've already identified 23 that need to be retired. >> supervisor cohen: right. so you've kind of touched on the point. 15 plus 12 is 27, and originally, before we went on the break, you were asking for 23. now it looks like you maybe -- you were going to -- you're proposing to now have amended your request to ask for 27. >> well, so in this moment, we've identified 23. we anticipate next year over the year, if we're putting another 70,000 miles on a rig that has 165,000, there's going to be at least four. we'll probably have another ten or so that will be recommended for retirement. again, we're just trying to be proactive. >> supervisor cohen: i