Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    January 30, 2012 6:48am-7:18am PST

6:48 am
i would imagine this going to go up again if we go further out. >> if we have a better idea of what the commission decides for the project and the digesters is a big driving force and it is a whole conversation about when do we want to do it and do we want to work on it and that drives the staffing plan. if you put a project on hold, i would rather know that before so i can move projects to fill in. >> i agree completely. this will have your projects at larger dollar amounts than recent, so that will change some of the staffing pattern. a big chunk of that will go into the southeast facility. >> the other thing i would point out is there was a lot of work
6:49 am
we were not experts in performing. we have very good knowledge and some of the older people were involved. we plan to do a higher percentage of work on that. >> we are looking at 10 years. would you say the $200 projecting staff will will stay at 200 for the next 10 years? >> 200 positions? i would have to look at the curve. really assess the workload. what i'm trying to do is have a balance. local 21 would like to mediate -- would like for me to hire as many people as possible and the
6:50 am
consultants would like to invest in small liquid businesses. the other big thing is space. we're squeezing in the 525 and other factors are involved. >> you have been trading out old positions that are probably not used anymore. as i look at that, the one exception is there is about six positions that appear to be genuine new positions. they don't show up because you are transferring some folks out. it does appear to be new positions. my question is, given the low workload is decreasing and there are people we value and want to
6:51 am
continue as it transitions, are there not opportunities or why are there not opportunities to do that kind of substitution and transfer instead of hiring new positions? >> good question. if we did not transfer 13 positions to another part of the organization, i would do that. i would substitute these positions, but it made sense that those people who have worked on it and have the knowledge and classifications already have, it paid better sense to move those over and the type of positions i'm asking for when you look at it is more administrative. we are requiring everyone to put
6:52 am
information and construction management information system. we're having engineers spend a lot of time putting information into systems and so we want to supply them with adequate resources so that they can be more efficient and effective performing their core duties. >> that makes absolute sense. when i saw those transfer positions coming in, i discounted them. my own arithmetic -- i did not count those because they are not really new hires. the other side of the coin is as they disappear, they shouldn't be coming to me. if there is the opportunity to recognize there is a shift in the workload and a decrease in one and increase in the other, if we could do that through substitution, it seems like it would be more appropriate.
6:53 am
>> it's a challenge because on one hand, engineers, you can move into construction management and they have -- part of their scope is to do construction management. if you have a civil engineer and the mechanical engineer, you cannot shift them. if you need an environmental manager, you cannot detect construct an inspector. -- you cannot get a construction inspector. we don't look at doing staffing plan by organization. we do by functional groups. >> you make a good point on that. what i would ask you to do is before you come back on the 14th, take a look at what would take to do that through substitution where you get rid of some vacant positions and use those to fund those.
6:54 am
>> by be transferring the number of vacancies to reduce -- >> you would look really good. >> not a problem. >> any questions from commissioners? >> i have one on the budget as a whole. we had a couple of resolutions from the citizens' advisory. one was supporting the action we took on power rates and that was appreciated. they also raised a question about the money we provide to city apartments for their services for work orders and it suggests a couple of things. one is we try not to let those increase in to the next budget and we establish a nexus between
6:55 am
what we pay and what we get. one thing that would help in approaching that -- i'm not sure what the appropriate budget resolution would be but if we could have a listing of what those work orders are and what they are projected to be in the next few years and a sentence that talks about what is at work, that would be very helpful. >> any other comments? >> yes. are we provided a one pager as to how much this budget is proposed to be cut? how many positions are not going to be hired so we have a macro view of the budget as opposed to
6:56 am
individual departments? >> you have not been provided with that. at the next meeting, we can do that. you will find some much there are that many cuts. >> i think that is important, but it is also important, the various bureaus and departments, what does it look like at the macro view so someone can say this is what is occurring and this is where the burden has increased on current employees. thank you. >> i was going to mention the work order summary. we will now see it again in two weeks. some minor points on infrastructure. i did not know we named it the hetch hetchy program said that
6:57 am
it is more consistent and because the department of the environment has a home improvement program -- [inaudible] on the staffing plan, i appreciate the updated slide and to it gets closer. i still have not fully reconciled the projected staffing level with the overall budget at the chart on page 3 which suggests 382 positions.
6:58 am
if there is a way to throw up to all positions, whether they are direct or support so it all adds up. i would note in the last several years we consolidated and they used to be separate and all got merged. all kinds of new things -- i do
6:59 am
think they should have some flexibility to move things around. if there are positions that are not going to be filled and just sitting there as budget numbers, those positions ought to be axed. there is a tension there but staff can work through that. finally on local 21 and contracting out as opposed to in house, where there is specialized peak workload, i support using other resources to make that happened to the extent there is an ongoing need -- to make that happen to the extent is an ongoing need and can be done in house. that's better to do for management and cost perspective. at a minimum, it doesn't matter with the contractor is, they are going to charge a much higher hourly rate plus their overhead.
7:00 am
those are all management and tension issues that can be resolved. >> thank you very much. >> good afternoon, commissioners. i have a question about 525 golden gate. in addition to the annual lease payment, there -- i did not see any positions associated with that. are there any positions associated with the clause and who is overseeing the function? >> it might be better to come back with a written report. there's a mix we're planning on using an outside contractor for cents is the first smart building we have and use it as a
7:01 am
trading opportunity for our stationary engineers to use. we plan on using the sure if forced security for the work order and there are different ways we're doing at where we are not necessarily adding a lot of staff by taking carry of it and we can give you the details of that. -- taking care of it. >> any other comments? mr. president, i turn the meeting over to you. >> the next item is to have a motion to continue the budget consideration until our next regularly scheduled meeting. >> >> the motion passes. item 23 is other new business. do we have any other new business? thank you very much. this meeting stands adjourned.
7:02 am
>> january 20, 2012, friday 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. here at city hall. welcome and would you please -- mabel, would you please do the roll call? >> we don't have captioning yet? >> control room, do we have captioning?
7:03 am
control room? ok, we have a policy of not going forward without the captioning. so we will wait until that comes on. oh, here, it's just not showing on one of the screens. so we can proceed. it means that the public is able to see it. please proceed. please proceed. since mabel is on the line with
7:04 am
7:05 am
7:06 am
7:07 am
7:08 am
7:09 am
7:10 am
7:11 am
7:12 am
7:13 am
7:14 am
7:15 am
7:16 am
7:17 am