tv [untitled] June 29, 2013 7:00pm-7:31pm PDT
interim have you discussed with the budget analyst office so we can have some transparency in the numbers. again i don't have a problem having policy debates but when people don't have the numbers in front of them that is a problem. supervisor breed? >> supervisor breed: yes, i want to go back to overtime. mr. rose you provided a report to us back in april and based on their projections your suggestion was a reduction of almost half a million which we did. i'm trying to understand because i don't feel that i have enough information in front of me to understand exactly what happened, what is the difference between then and now, number one. number two, in terms of the minimum staffing requirement, does the overtime that is being requested exceed the overtime
that has been issued over the course of what is required for the minimum staffing requirement? and has that been looked at by your office? >> supervisor farrell: ms. campbell first. >> i'll respond to the supplemental appropriation. we based our numbers on the reasonably expected increases over the end of the year. >> based on minimum staffing requirements? >> looking at supplemental we were looking at the average spending per pay period per overtime, accounting for the fact that there were holidays coming up between that day and the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: i want to be clear. you don't take into account minimum staffing requirement so that over time does not exceed the minimum staffing requirement? >> yes we did. we looked at the number of ftes
the expositions they have to staff the fire stations as of that date and how it compared as of that data prior years, and how it compares to overtime spending as of that date and how it extends out to the end of the year. >> supervisor breed: how do we account for the discrepancy? >> they were spending at that pace through the pay period ending on may 24, the last pay period for which the data is not in yet, they were projecting significantly higher overtime. we had not seen in the original translations. they were spending 1.5 million in a pay period, higher than in any other pay periods in the academy have completed in january of that year and higher than the prior year during those months. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor breed, correct me if
i'm wrong, that is not a supplemental request per se, that is simply switching from salaries to overtime. there was also a discussion around the fire department saying that we dissipate, we did the same thing a few months ago shifting from salaries to overtime and the fire department anticipated they would have more than what is allocated.
>> we don't know all the reasons for that spike. they spent the money now at least they said they will spend it to the end of the pay period. we don't think that we made a mistake when we look at the projections several weeks ago. >> supervisor breed: are you suggesting this is money anticipated to take us to the end of the fiscal year or are we looking at an additional allocation of overtime support for the end of the fiscal year? >> it would close the loop on the fiscal year, simply moving one line item to the other. i know you want to move forward
but will stay here all afternoon however long you want us. clearly when we came in april there is a slight frustration because this was fully predicted by us. we know from history and trends that may and june we will be spending more in overtime; there is a higher absenteeism, and higher amount of retirement in june. this is absolutely predictable. i know we had a conversation with supervisor avalos this morning; there was a lot of theatrics in april that this would not happen, dead on. it is what it is. we appreciate the work that everyone has done; we were within about 19,000 dollars or without we would be, that is pretty good, not a science but we are moving forward. in the fire department a staffing cyclical and the needs in terms of overtime expenditures are different from month-to-month.
we appreciate the work that was done and now the recommendation that is very different from april and the recommendation of 400-some-od to cover the additional year but no additional funding request is made by the department this time. >> supervisor farrell: -- >> i want to reinforce that we made ballot isolations and accounted for all the assumptions of the fire department made. cannot control how they manage their overtime. >> supervisor farrell: okay. questions or comments at this time?
i know for the record i know there was a dispute a few months ago; the way the process unfolded to me is completely appropriate. t we agree what we could agree upon a few months ago and now we are back. on where the other is completely appropriate the way it has gone down.. one the make sure everyone's on board with the numbers and then we'll call you back and look at. ms. hicks, thanks for waiting. my apologies for not calling you your the police department. >> good afternoon supervisor farrell and members of the finance committee i understand why the occ was overlooked because we are part of the police department but we are separate in how we manage our budget. since last week's heairng we
did reach an agreement of the minds. we did not have an agreement of the minds on the vehicle for just but i do understand that the board of supervisors, or your committee is taking a closer look at the healthy and clean air transportation ordinance. particularly for departments such as mine that only have two vehicles other clarify with the department of environment the for small fleet such as mine the five percent per year reduction for four years for 20% reduction would not apply to the two vehicles that we have because that result in a 50 percent reduction. i did also clarify that the vehicles at the occ don't qualify as public safety vehicles for an exemption such
as the police department vehicles, fire and sheriff. as i indicated last week, because our vehicles are over 12 years old they would have to be retired by june 30th, 2015. they do not have high mileage and each fico has about 55,000 miles on them. there is currently no exemption for the vehicles under the ordinance . should the ordinance not be amended to accommodate our vehicles our continue to urge the board of supervisors to approve the replacement. thank you. >> supervisor farrell: thank you ms. hicks. we don't have a separate report; this is contained within the police department, correct? okay. >> thank you very much.
>> that does not make any sense. >> no. >> whoever leaves the department, we or once someone leaves a department. >> at that point, we are not going to be able to back flow. >> that is my point, if no one leaves for $275,000 in the hole. >> we disagree with your calculation and we have provided you with our analysis and we totally disagree. >> supervisor breed. >> we just approved the supplemental a couple of months ago and there should be sufficient savings from that approved as well. and i am trying to understand where that went.
>> so those savings will stay in the current year and will not be carried into the next fiscal year. >> it will all are spent? >> it will go back to the general fund. >> thank you. >> avalos? >> okay. >> so, are there any other questions, colleagues? >> so, we have heard from the budget and legislative analyst and it sounds like there is a disagreement on this $270,,000. >> exactly >> at least. >> we do have this discrepancy, how do you want to handle this? is there a motion? >> a motion to the budget analyst recommendations. and so i will second that as well. so, shall we have a roll call on that it
>> why don't we wait for a few minutes, are there any questions further questions? >> okay. >> you have enough in the budget to cover that? >> or not? >> if this cut does not go through, yes? >> and it is unlikely that if the reality is that if people will leave because, and we will not be able to backfill, certainly the equivalent to the attorneys, given this reduction.
and that is why, we are not in agreement. >> it has been as low as four percent and as high as ten percent and i believe that it is seven percent now in terms of what is budgeting. >> okay. so i mean just to be clear, this is basically to provide some cushion, from your perspective. and well it is to insure that we remain whole. i mean that we are, as a supervisor breed asked earlier, what happens to the money from the supplemental from last year and that money going back to the general fund. clearly if there is any cushion, we will go back to the general fund. we just would prefer not to be on a situation where we are midway through the year and we are coming to you and saying that we need a world of spending because we don't have the money, you know, the alternative will be that it is
no longer, we are letting people off? i don't think that will be the intention of this body and certainly not my intention. >> supervisor breed? >> i just, i am not necessarily clear on the analysis presented and i think that the positions in your office are approved and if there is a problem in the fiscal year and there is an overage and you have to come back before us we will be obligated to support that. and so, i am just not certain, i am not clear on the explanation in terms of the back sale and what that all means, it is not making sense to me. >> sure. so what it is is we are fully funded, with the current budget assuming that we do not have this 270,000 reduction. if we were to take the 270,000 reduction, we will start a year on the deficit spending. and whether that will be directed during the year, as
the people leave when we do not hire people and there are vacancies that remains to be seen. >> okay. >> supervisor weiner? >> i don't think that they will be obligated to do a supplemental and if we think that they are going to need the salary, and we should appropriate it, because what will happen is that in the nine months out or however, they are going to come back and no one is going to remember when and it will look like they want more money and no one did a good job and it was really a board that cut that budget. it is a question if they need the money or not. >> okay, folks, supervisor breed? >> my biggest problem is i just don't understand, i just don't understand what that means.
it just does not make any sense to me. and i'm looking at this report, and i have reviewed the report, and i feel like the budget analyst is saying, one thing that i do understand, and the da's office is saying something that i don't understand. and it makes sense in terms of what the projection is, based on the salaries, and based on the full staffing and based on what we have over all for the district attorney office. and what i'm saying in terms of if there is a concern for the future, if there was a mistake that was made, which i don't necessarily see or i don't have a clear understanding for the basis of the mistake, then there are positions that have
been approved and were obligated as a city to pay for those positions. and i am not seeing or i am not hearing exactly what this means, and operating it as a deficit sounds, so for example, there is potentially an overage for this current fiscal year from the supplemental that was provided to the district attorney's office. and there is an expectation that anything that was not necessarily spent will be coming back to the city. and so, we are talking about potentially a small surplus. and i don't understand how you are approaching the coming fiscal year in a budget deficit when you are starting from the beginning and you are operating at full staffing and what is budgeted at the appropriate
steps and the appropriate benefits are to meet the needs of of course, the existing staff. understanding that potentially people retire and find other jobs and there are costs associated with maybe a pay out which from my understanding that has been accounted for. and but i don't understand, i don't understand anything other than that. >> and i appreciate the points that you are raising. the concern that we have is that we are going into a budget that we know that if we have no salary savings, we would be at a deficit, right? i don't believe that that is a good business model. >> so it is salary savings. >>