Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    July 6, 2013 5:00pm-5:31pm PDT

5:00 pm
>> june 26, 2013. my name is supervisor mark farrell, i will be chairing this committee. i'm joined by supervisors john avalos and london breed, and will be joined by supervisor mar who is stuck in a meeting. >> clerk young: -- documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk.
5:01 pm
>> supervisor farrell: thank you mr. clerk. colleagues, given that supervisor wiener is stuck in a board meeting -- we can and then dismiss those departments. -- so mr. clerk could you please call right now items six and seven. >> clerk young:( reading agenda)
5:02 pm
>> why don't we have our health service system up. >> good morning supervisors -- acting director of the health services system. we want to thank you budget analyst team for their very thorough and thoughtful work with us and we are happy that we have come to an agreement with the budget analyst on our budget for next year. >> supervisor farrell: thanks ms. copy (sounds like) >> mr. chairman mbers of the committee on page 6, recommended reductions total -- approximately 53 percent, or 111 427 would result in savings to the general fund and for 14-15 the recommendation is --
5:03 pm
and of that amount presently 123,147 would result in savings to the general fund. >> supervisor farrell: thank you mr. rose. any question for mr. rose? can we accept without opposition? so moved. (gavel) up next do we have the sheriff's department here? sure, bree here from the sheriff's department. >> it's on. >> hi. supervisors good morning. i am prima horder, the cfo --
5:04 pm
the sheriff is running down the hall to get here on time but we are in agreement and we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have and also have information regarding our supplemental request if you would like to hear it. >> supervisor farrell: mr. clerk could you please call item number one. >> supervisor farrell: okay, thanks. we you like to talk about item number one? >> yes.
5:05 pm
-- -- in the interest of time i will work off the prints on the powerpoint. as you can see on the first slide we are requesting to move about 460,000 from the salina
5:06 pm
salaries and 250,000 from dependent coverage to cover overtime. the reason we need to move is that we do have enough cash but we do not have sufficient budget allocation and this is in fact from supervisor farrell's overtime legislation two years ago. this is the second time we have worked with this ordinance; the department is learning how to manage his budget within the parameters of the ordinance which is exactly what we were intended to do. and you can see that in the following slide the problem is primarily due to a structural budget problem. if you look at the pec work order you can see that we have three separate categories. the
5:07 pm
prominent salary categories, uniform salary categories and overtime salary categories. if you look at the budget you can see that all of the budgetary funds were placed in hermann and miscellaneous salaries which is people like me which were uniformed and there were no funds for uniform salaries or overtime, unusual because u staff work this position and the puc determined that they would like to hire two positions and work two half shifts on overtime. this means that we had about 250,000 in overtime that was worked and that we intended to work and the puc paid us for but was not budgeted. similarly you can see in the dp 20 budget, although we perform work there we had no extend
5:08 pm
expenditures. a technical change that's what sets in compliance with supervisor farrell's ordinance. >> supervisor farrell: any questions on item 1? supervisor mar. >> supervisor mar: i wanted to ask the sheriff, this is not about the supplemental but just on one of the general items. there's a 1.3 million dollar i believe capital -- line item that has to do with the acquisition of the parcel that his next-door to the hall of justice. some of the community groups have raised concerns that there hasn't been enough discussion on that item. as we modernize the jail. i wonder if you could comment on that item because it has been raised by a number of
5:09 pm
community-based groups. >> we welcome the discussion. we had a forum a few days ago where a number of groups have been under the impression that we are looking to expand jail space which is false. it was -- many years ago before was elected sheriff, by the department of public works that the hall of justice would be demolished. in a staggered approach of replacing the departments that are in the hall of justice, whether the courts, police department, district attorney's office, adult probation and the two jails on the sixth and seventh floor, is essential that we replace the jails on the sixth and seventh floor which comprises 903 beds.
5:10 pm
when i came into office there was an effort to have a one for one that replacement. i thought that was excessive and unnecessary and a great amount of effort with city partners has been underway for some time now to have a more effective and smaller jail. i also sent letters to all supervisors many months ago inviting them to tours of the jail system and some have. in my opinion conditions in jail 3 and 4 are absolutely horrific. the style of the jail reflects yesteryear, about 50 years ago plus how jails were made. people were sardines in our custody. we cannot get programs in the jails because of how poor the architecture provides for that opportunity. it borders on inhumane if not
5:11 pm
inhumane altogether. the headge the mindset of myself at yourself or the board of supervisors and seven in san francisco it would be ideal if we did not been to jail. the courts are going to keep sentencing, the police are going to keep arresting and the d's are going to continue to prosecute. in many not just general population -- while they are in our custody i wanted to be in a secure and safe environment that anybody both taxpayer and shared with agree on but we also want to be a rehabilitative environment and that's been the problem with jails 3 and 4.
5:12 pm
historically it has not been allowed to be that and we cannot get the kind of wraparound management where we introduce programming that one would hope would help toward successful transition back into society. that is what's going on there. the bottom line is we would be the first county in california that is contemplating in jail project, everyplace in jail not just a jill expansion and be reducing our jail space by 30 percent. every other county in california due to realignment especially those reeling from realignment it's we are not and regions in california due to the recent projects, they are looking at expansion. in the last five years if any jails have been built or those in the pipeline to be built it's about expanding their cell and bed space we are talking reducing by 30 percent. with the recent decision by the
5:13 pm
court that rejected governor brown's appeal to halt prison realignment, and we see realignment coming down only in good conscience i have the obligation to say that we have the right facilities to receive those that will be coming back and to do so anyway that is consistent with our core value and that core values to do everything we can the tackle recidivism while people are incarcerated before they're handed off. >> supervisor mar: that is crystal clear where we are planning modernization. you are saying that san francisco may be unlike other jurisdictions planning to reduce the number of cells. >> by 30 percent. it alarmed me too when i started to see these messages that were being put out there that we want to expand and expand with 800 beds. that is just not true at all. >> supervisor mar: thank you.
5:14 pm
>> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos. >> supervisor avalos: i met with some folks as well and totally understand where you're coming from in terms of the overall goal of reducing recidivism and incarceration in smaller jail facilities aligned with those goals. they mentioned that at san bruno there is a pod or jail facility there that is actually ready and capable of being used right now but it is not being used and perhaps that facility can be used stead of rebuilding a new jail, replacement jail. i didn't quite think that was actually correct but would like to hear your interpretation -- not your interpretation of what you see is happening at san bruno in terms of jail facility and the usage and what is available.
5:15 pm
>> we want to maximize as much as we can. san francisco is the least crowded which is a good thing. the way the space is configured it is not all general population. when we have to buffer opposing gangs that creates a different kind of jailing staffing plan where we are not able to group people together as is the case with people we are seeing a constant uptick which we mentioned before suffering from mental health and psychiatric needs which requires the use of jail space that is more isolated or requires more staff intensive that does not give us always the room for other places inside. >> supervisor avalos: what are the different units?
5:16 pm
>> county jail number 5 and part of 6. while we can convert in a large style dormitory some of that that is not with the population is in jails 3 and 4 at the hall of justice. it would be not a fit, not compatible whatsoever. >> supervisor avalos: using all jail facilities at san bruno, what is response to that? >> if the courts were willing to transfer to san bruno, that is a whole systemic question. it is not just the people housing, but the people being sent since we are not the ones doing the prosecuting and sentencing. there is also pretrial; already made the people near the court that are able to have greater
5:17 pm
access to the system here. >> supervisor avalos: has there been any cost analysis? >> it is significant. by the sheriff department and by consultants outside, i believe about 17 dollars. >> supervisor avalos: on an annual basis, transportation back and forth to san bruno. >> that's right. we don't have the space anyway. we would not be able to be able to maximize all space in san bruno in lieu of not having space here at the hall of justice. >> supervisor avalos: thank you isn't it true that the public safety bond that we have a couple of years ago the original version actually had to rebuild of - -- and it was taken off because it was deemed politically unfeasible for the voters to support a bond that would actually -- >> i believe that was the case. i forgot what year that was.
5:18 pm
>> supervisor avalos: i think it was 2010. >> 2009-2010. jails in any single county are the most unpopular institutions to be built and there is good reason for that because in this country, in the state we have overbuilt. there is a legitimate mistrust with the field of dreams analysis. if you build it they will come. i want to use that counterintuitive which i think it is important to demystify what motive we have. we are not looking to expand but to reduce. but we need to take care of not only the current population but future population needs. >> supervisor avalos: -- working on recidivism and realignment. >> we are. the department is sensible enough that they recognize
5:19 pm
where the needs are and if we are moving to a point of access they would say that as well because we work more in the symmetry. so far people see the rationale for the department of public works, the mayors office and others in the city; there seems to be a rational plan. any questions about the budget overall? >> supervisor farrell: any questions at this time? did you ever report separately on item number one? > yes we did pages 38, 39, bottom line is that based on the analysis that we recommended you approve the ordinance. regarding the recommendations on page 39 of the report, our total recommendations in 13-14 will result in 435,073 city city general fund and for 14-15 recognitions total
5:20 pm
131,000 even. >> okay, colleagues any questions for mr. rose? >> i want to thank budget analyst's office for working with our office diligently. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues, can i have a motion to accept the budget recommendation on the sheriff's budget. (gavel) we do need to take public comment on this item. if there is someone on the public that would like to comment step forward. public comment is closed. can have a motion? can we do so without opposition (gavel) so moved. up next,
5:21 pm
the treasurer tax collector. mr. cisneros. >> good morning supervisors, jose cisneros, seven cisco treasurer tax collector. >> supervisor farrell: any questions for the treasurer? mr. rose can we go to the updated budget report. >> page 57 of the report, our recommendations in 13-14 would result in 459,184 on your page you have a number of 559,568, our revised recommendation is 459,184, the city's general fund. in 13-14, are new reductions
5:22 pm
are 34,849, instead of the 79,727. those are our recommendations. >> supervisor farrell: any questions for mr. rose or our treasurer? we have a motion to accept the budget reports recognition? siti. )we have the fine arts museum here? >> good morning chairman farrell. supervisors. michelle -- with the fine arts easier when we are in agreement with the budget analyst. we thank you so much for your continued support of the dm and the legion of honor. >> supervisor farrell: any questions? mr. rose can we go to the revised budget report?
5:23 pm
>> on page 53 recommended reduction is 38,631 in 13-14 and on 14-15 are recommended reductions totaled again 38,641. >> supervisor farrell: thank you very much mr. rose any questions .? any motion to approve the recognitions? we do so without opposition. (gavel) we can do adult probation? >> supervisor farrell: are you in agreement this time? >> almost. we do have an item in discussion.
5:24 pm
you like for us to go down or come back? >> supervisor farrell: do we have adult provision here? go ahead. >> we have worked very closely, we appreciate the budget analyst discussion and working together and also the mayor's budget analyst. the majority of the items we are on agreement on. there is one ask that i have, reduction proposed of 95,833 as it realtes to mother/infant cameo house alternative sentencing program and under the projected decrease of 42,294, i am not in disagreement introducing these amounts because of delays, takes time to bring it online but the concern is that this is ab109 money directly in have
5:25 pm
great needs for services that if there will be a reduction in these items it is not because there is not a vast need for services. 109 money should be absolutely reinvested and their statute language that requires that at the state level so my ask is for these two dollar amount that are opposed to be reduced that they would be reinvested so that we can procure more housing and/or substance abuse services which we have 86% and 62% of the need. >> any department can come before you and say they agree with the recommendations but they want to use them for something else. normally the position of the budget and finance committee has been and that in the add-ons, if they do type that is a priority of the board of supervisors they would add that back rather than not accepting the budget analyst recommended cuts. the department saying that the
5:26 pm
agreement the cuts but they should use it for something else. every department can do that and you would wind up with no cuts. >> supervisor farrell: mr. controller? >> is aniston the chief is saying she is arguing that a portion of the revenue that fits under these reductions have to be legally expended only for those reductions. she is in agreement with the budget analyst. one suggestion for the committee would be to adopt the budget analyst recommendations in terms of expenditure reductions. we can work with the department of the tournament whether there is a legal restriction on these funds. if there is not will return it to the general fund as part of the final deliberations. if it is legally segregated we can report that act of the committee and you can pick it up on the final actions on the budget. >> supervisor farrell: supervisor avalos? >> supervisor avalos: is a way that analysis can be provided in the next day? or would that take more analysis? >> i think we can resolve that
5:27 pm
today. >> supervisor breed: i think you said what i'm going to ask about specifically -- i understand that there are certain limitations. i did not necessarily here that those limitations are specific just to that particular position but there are other areas in which those funds could be used for within your budget. >> right. i'm actually proposing to leave those in the same area which is professional services. that's how we basically procure our housing. i'm not asking to go outside of the area. it is just as the city for service needs. >> supervisor breed: okay. and would like to if at all possible and i think supervisor avalos has asked this, i would like to take it is the general fund reduction and they're working on that, correct? >> supervisor farrell: i think
5:28 pm
the choice supervisor is what we can do right now for the controller's suggestion is we can accept the budget analyst recommendations. we'll hear back within the next 20 for hours whether the funds can be returned to the general fund or whether they have to sit in a ab 109 stunning category if you will. >> for the record, i do not repeat recommended reductions in 13-14.. the total is 403,452, and in 14-15, 188 12. >> supervisor farrell: i might suggest that, accepted budget analyst recommendations and would have for the discussion on this item tomorrow morning.
5:29 pm
we can do so without opposition. (gavel) >> supervisor farrell: okay, up next ms. sou -- (sounds like) from dcyf? >> good morning, maria sou, department of children and youth and families. this a great morning and wonderful day for us in san francisco and us in the country. after further conversations with the budget analyst office we have come to an agreement and will accept the proposal for the budget analyst's office. >> supervisor farrell: colleagues any questions at this time? why do we hear from mr. rose and your updated report.
5:30 pm
-- >> mr. chairman, numbers of the committee on page 74 of the report, recommended reductions are -- and for 14-15 total 269,256. >> we want to clarify in our recommendation that 350,000 of the recommendation is a general fund reduction. the balance is the children's fund reduction available for reappropriation, of the children fund's program. >> supervisor farrell: -- supervisor breed?