Skip to main content

tv   62216 BOS Budget Committee  SFGTV  July 7, 2016 12:00am-1:41am PDT

12:00 am
>>[gavel] >> good morning everybody and welcome to san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday june 22, 2016. my name is mark farrell i'm sharing this committee. i'm joined by supervisor katie tang and norman yee and jane kim. scott weiner is joining shortly. i want to thank linda one clerk of our committee as well as sfgov tv for covering today's meeting. with that mdm. clerk any announcements >> yes. please silence all cell phones electronic devices. complete speaker cards >> thank you
12:01 am
>> city manager: please call item number one >> item number one is the hearing on the city's financial position and requesting the mayor's budget director and the controller to report >> thank you. this item will be continuing all the time in case something comes up we have nothing in today so i will continue this item. with that will first take public comment. anyone wishing to comment on item number one? seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> denied a motion to continue item number one >>? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> item number two >> item number two proposed budget and appropriations ordinance four departments of the as of may 31, 2015 for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 and june 30, 2010. item number three, >>[reading code]
12:02 am
>> thank you mdm. clerk. welcome back to our second round of budget hearings. we only have five departments in the second round to get overly that the record. we have two that i understand in agreement and three that are still discussing items. but the talk about as a committee. i'm going to call to outliners that were in agreement first. first i called the department of technology. >> good morning. miguel-city cio department of technology. i am here thrilled to say that we are in agreement with harvey and his office. i want to thank them for their hard work and re-engaging with us and talking through those concerns and
12:03 am
coming to agreement with a good >> thank you very much. colleagues if there's no other questions mr. rose can we get a report? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee, on page 2 of our report, it shows our totals. as either standard upon occurs agrees with the recommended reductions. on page 3 of five of our report and the total recommendations are a 94.603 in 16-17. total general fund savings including the encumbrances are sick 16 9.0 49 and 17-18 116 .239. >> thank you. any questions colleagues? department or budget analyst? okay. with that and i entertain a motion to accept the budget it was recommendations on our department of technology's budget? moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> sorry, up next we have department of emergency management.
12:04 am
>> good morning supervisor." about director of emergency management and it pleases me today to be able to say we are in agreement with mr. rose and the budget analyst i want to just take this opportunity to thank harvey and his staff and the mayor and his staff, melissa and anthony have both been incredible supporters and always the controller's office. most importantly, my cfo, will lee was done a great job this year. thank you >> thank you very much. colleagues, any questions for staff? that euros can we go to our report? >> yes. on page 14 of our report recommended reductions to the proposed budget and 60-70 total 187.651 which a one-time savings. still allow
12:05 am
an increase of about $10.8 million or 13.1% in the province budgeted we do not recommend any reductions for the proposed budget and 17-acting as either standard the department doesn't concur with these recommendations on page 15 of our report >> thank you. colleagues any questions or budget analyst with about? and i entertain a motion to accept the budget recommendations? moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> up next, naomi kelly is here. we will do office of city minister, ms. kelly the barman of homelessness after here and will go to police. >> good afternoon i'm sorry good morning supervisors. naomi kelly city administrator. we have not got in agreement with the budget analyst and i think this is the first time in my time as being city administrator. we have agreed as of last week to three and $64 .339 and cuts. we are in
12:06 am
disagreement over 495 canopy suit comes down to three positions. two of them are with our to contact compliance officers with the office of labor standards and enforcement. i think i should point out in the last two years there have been four corridor passed by the board of supervisors that would increase the workload with the office of labor standards and enforcement it every thing from the formal retail corridor, their chance corridor, minimum wage ordinance and the parental paid leave ordinance. in fiscal year 14, at the end of the year was about 110 cases opened in the last 10 years corridor and outreach to workers we ended with a caseload of 214 case
12:07 am
good i think it's very important to add new contact compliance officers we can help with the rollout of the paid parental leave ordinance. everything from outreaching to businesses, a reaching to workers, establishing rules which were going to affect in january 27. that's a heavy workload to do between now and then. it's not that we can absorb this work back into existing contracts because as you just heard, they have a huge caseload from the existing laws that they need to address. this, by addressing it in staffing closing about as fast as possible, that is money for workers who have not gotten the correct minimum wage, not got out there. that is money that does not go back to the city because back to the worker to rectify if they were not given their fair wage. so, i would argue that you please adopt our allow for these two positions to be passed. second, other position is the own 933, the basic identity 0933 with a
12:08 am
digital service didn't come a which is a new division i discussed this last week that would be looking at how do we create a new team that looks at , how do we provide better services to the residents of san francisco be looking at the processes at doing our business with the city and county of san francisco online. how do we streamline those processes? a good example of the opposite short-term rentals. how do we streamline the registration process so that we can encourage more and more people were doing short-term rentals to register in a sufficient way. how do we-many people want to come and get birth certificates or marriage certificate. can you do it online? dog licenses. can we get dog licenses online versus take-up time to come down to city hall figuring out the maze of bureaucracy, and then finding those license. many working people do not have the luxury to take off during the
12:09 am
business hours to come and do this. how do we make the services of san francisco more accessible to the residence in the first of san francisco and not as accessible as in the convenience of doing it online, but this language efficiencies, disability making it accessible for disability access and much more. so, in the next year, when i want to focus on again is as i said, how do we make just starting with those programs in the city administrator's office. dog licenses. items either the county clerks office whether it's marriage certificates, birth certificates, death certificates, and also opposite short-term rentals. how do we focus and make those services more efficient to the residence and tourist of san francisco. i
12:10 am
would hope that you would approve the 0933. >> thank you very much miscalculation would back in a second. mr. rose, go to report, please? >> yes. members of the committee, on page 7 of our report our total recommended general fund reductions in 16-17 re: 57.333. in 17 and 18, the total is 732.269. so, supervisors, let me clarify the two recommendations that the department disagrees with. the first one is on page 9 of our report. on the digital services program first of all were recommending approval of two of three requested you positions. so, we absolutely believe this is an essential function and we are recommending two of three. the one position that we do not believe is justified-let me mention the two positions that were recommending on ias-business analyst and a project manager. the one position that we do not believe is justified is a manager five position, and we note that according to the department of
12:11 am
human resources, job-the actual job description, the manager five is responsible for managing divisions of medium to large size. this digital services program has only three proposed employees. we are recommending approval of two of the three. so, we do not believe that the manager of five position is justified. i would be happy to respond to any questions. i can go to the next one. however the committee want to do this >> okay. so, in terms of just to be clear, on page 9 we are talking about the entire line item here that the 239 savings that you're talking about in the digital services, and then-
12:12 am
>> that is correct. that is just one position. >> understood. the ones in dispute on the contact compliance with oh lse, this is the one 18 and 339. >> that's a good two army to just clarify >> that's fine. i understand. >> okay >> so, colleagues, we have a discussion here and would have to make a decision. i will note just on the outside, we agreed upon is not an agreement right now. quickly we can get through committee. if not we have one more matter of committee that can break a logjam 01 way or another. if we need to but hopefully we can get it done without that. mr. rose >> mr. chairman can i make one statement on the contact compliance position >> please >> again we are fully supportive. were recommending those position. we are stating their vacant positions to fill the vacant positions. that's why we are so, even though this is a reduction we are providing as a matter of fact, our recommendation provides for reducing attrition savings.
12:13 am
that means to increase the salaries in order that they can fill the vacant positions. so, our statement to you is you should not in our judgment, you should not add new positions when you have existing vacant positions. and we are providing the necessary funds to fill those positions. if you accept our recommendation. >> thank you mr. rose. supervisor kim >> i'm sorry mr. rose. back to director kelly, just want to ask again, you approved two out of the three position to use out of their position wasn't necessary because it is in a medium-size organization so that level you disagree with that level of pay and classification? but you also feel this could be filled by existing vacant positions?. no. there's two separate recommendations supervisor kim. the first one you refer to is the digital services program
12:14 am
and you're absolutely right. we have recommended approval of two of the three new positions. the reason why we recommended the disapproval of this manager position is because according to dhr, it's not our judgment-as you stated, it-that position is just justified from medium to high level organizations it is only three employees in this entire organization. it doesn't-we did not create the human resources classification. with respect to contact and compliance officers are we are recommending against two of those, only because there are seven vacant positions. >> there are seven vacant contact compliance officer positions currently. how many are actually filled?, the ftes are currently filled
12:15 am
>> of the seven vacant therefore filled with temporary positions and the other remaining ones were actively recruiting right now in this interview set up >> how many total contact compliance officers are there within [inaudible] >> 18. >> of the 18 seven are vacant whether taking full and seven vacant? >> of the 18 there is other seconds seven vacant for a filled with people right now. >> right. i'm trying to figure out if you have 18, +7, or if there seven vacant of the 18? >> of the 18 positions,, seven of them are technically vacant but god for that are >> filled with temporary positions >> yes >> i'm sorry >> supervisor kim, i want to clarify what we did in our recommendation because the department was stating that they do not have sufficient full-time salary funds to fill all the vacant positions. so, we listen to that statement and we made a recommendation now
12:16 am
before you to reduce attrition savings. by reducing attrition savings, that means were increasing the salaries needed to fill the vacant positions. so, it's just a pure calculation. anyone can dispute the calculation. if you accept our recommendation, what you would be doing instead of creating a new position you be feeling vacant position. >> can i ask-i'm sorry that i will come back to you so you can respond to mr. rose's comments but if i can just ask one more question. so, there is currently seven vacant positions of which are city administrator has said there's four filled temporarily. this three vacant positions, +2 new requested positions of which you are saying you may not need because we just fill those three. the two positions, what month is a "pickdoes it begin?
12:17 am
>> my understanding october 1 the >> ms. kelly of the can respond and i have some follow-up questions. >> just to be attrition come i think if we set something to make you think it was with other standards and enforcement made of in a different division. we do have the funds to fund those position. i was a little lost on the last argument may we can just talk off-line on that., but back to the digital service positioned in the own night three days, i want to make it very clear to the board of supervisors that dhr approved this level of position because it's not just a medium-size department in the budget. the complexity and the skill set that's needed to put together a program of this nature. so, you need someone with a higher level of leadership and skills that this was something dhr approved at this level opposition and i think i should note and put that out there. >> supervisors, just to clarify. supervisor kim, dhr
12:18 am
is the way it goes. you know this. the department requested a position. they then discuss it with dhr and dhr says, no, you don't need level of that position. the department goes back to dhr and they say, yes, we do need a. i understand. okay. we approve it. that's the way it happens. the bottom line is, there's three positions in this department. you don't need that high level of a position. >> so, coming back to ms. kelly, i know that you had mentioned that there is almost a double of open cases now due to the lack of staffing. but i wasn't aware of that there are three more positions to fill, and tonight asking for two more on top of that. i just want to understand if you do really need
12:19 am
two additional, if these three additional wouldn't help with those remaining cases? >> that three additional, not only do we have these ordinance we also the billing wage unit doing with attrition in those cases that need to happen. there is a huge caseload that we have to address. so, those existing-just the 18 can help with existing caseload. that's not adding on a new corridor. so i strongly feel that we need two more positions to help with the increasing number of legislation that is being passed to effectively implement those pieces of legislation could >> with a fork every workers, their pathway to become permanent employees we picked >> were working on having now >> rate. if you have three remaining positions is it real realistic you'll higher off i by october of this year? >> belfry. if we get two more we can start the hiring process until october. >> correction we should make at least those two remaining is made we should start them at a later date that october of 2016. if you want people to item by over 2016.
12:20 am
>> the remaining two? >> for the remaining two >> have them- >> just give us a realistic timeframe so that >> it we can make that a amendment >> i think that's fine >> so those are my remaining questions. i overhauled to support sb nails make sure there's enough staff to do with contract compliance. i think that's incredibly important in the door as much legislation to protect our workers and we do want make sure those legislations are enforced. if we come up with a realist realist at hiring remaining to give an there's two vacant positions that would be what i would like to see forward. i do a lot of questions about the digital services program. i do appreciate the presentation did. i think this is hard because i like to say some of the tangible goals and outcomes that would be produced by the end of the following year for us to evaluate this program was moving forward in the right direction. so, i will have some
12:21 am
further questions on that later on in the process. >> supervisor yee >> ms. kelly, just to clarify, you are saying that the three remaining vacancies, vacant positions could be filled by october? >> yes >> if you adapt to additional you'll give us a realistic time that could be those could be filled? >> i'm sorry. i cannot hear the question. >> if you were to have two more additional people that would be compliance officers, you are saying by january that would be realistic in terms of filling those additional two? >> i think with supervisor kim
12:22 am
and if i heard her right delaying the start, when those pictures rooms with come on. we would have access to those positions in january. have them as a .75 and .5 fte which means we could not suck the hiring process until january. >> okay. >> colleagues, any further questions or discussion? i would just say for my perspective and supervisor kim if you have questions about it, i want to be able to support the departments certainly the contract compliance with-i believe were all sensitive to i want to support in terms of digital services, this is actually something i've been wanting and asking for for long time and hope they would move towards just a more consumer friendly city government if you will. i think this is the step in that direction to so something i definitely want to be supporting as well. i know that we discussion with that supervisor tang >> thank you. i think for the contract compliance officers i would agree with supervisor kim's suggestion on the later start date in january. i think
12:23 am
it sounds like we might all be in agreement on that. in terms of the other manager position, i would just say that if some of the comments i made last hearing i completely understand why we need someone at that salary level to attract the talent we hope so that we can transform the way we do business online as a city government. we are not very good at what we do online. so, to try to get more people to be able to file permits or to apply for things, look up information online, i think we do need someone who has probably some private-sector experience. i don't know. someone who heavily has not been so entrenched in our city government second us four. so, ideally, i think we would have loved to seen someone ready a lower position level but i understand this a huge undertaking that we are trying to embark upon. so, i would
12:24 am
actually support the program them i can sorry, the digital services program that manager position. >> okay. supervisor kim >> thank you. i do think were in agreement on the contract compliance officers beginning in january. i think that's incredibly important. i do continue have questions about the digital services program. not because of dir. kelley's leadership yet i think that she does a tremendous job come up but i have in general just over the last six years been skeptical of the city's ability to deliver digital online services but also our ability to attract and actually this is not the fault of the city. we happen to live in a region where we have an amazing number of companies that are attracting the best engineers and programmers. it's frankly just very difficult for the city to compete at you had a higher salary range. i understand the justification
12:25 am
for a higher salary range. i think it's needed. i did a more tangible outcomes that we know what ongoing to be achieved in your one, year two, so the we have a way of evaluating the digital service program is actually meeting the needs are city residents. i like overall concept. i was more of our services, my. i just wanted able understand how the city can actually deliver to the three positions in me that conversation can continue but i want to express that. >> supervisors, i think thank you for recommending that we need a high level position four-we need them with the leadership and skill set to bring this to a point where we can get you every-for the next year or two we the metrics and what we plan i think accomplish, i think we look the federal government as an example when president obama will doubt the affordable care act the and website just completely collapsed which was very important for all of us in the nation to get on the website. he brought in a very high level team to do exactly
12:26 am
what we are trying to do here in san francisco. if-this is really infancy stages of our time to develop this and just put this first year were really laying the foundation. everything from setting up processes to the look and feel ,, to the technical architecture of our website and the interfaces within the different departments. if i was to say, here's what i want to accomplish this first year it would exactly that. plus looking at it in the city administrators role of areas where we could help immediately where doing a lot of thinking about officer short-term rentals in getting online registration because many of those lightly were wrongly, are saying, many of those renting short-term rentals are saying, well the registration process is too cumbersome. i want them to have that excuse anymore. so we are working through how to make that online registration happen
12:27 am
so they can comply with these laws that were passed by the board of supervisors. other things we here just if you're going into the neighborhood and the residence, i'd like a dog walkers and inefficient man. can we-i would love to have that be like one of the number one priorities to make that happened this year. other things with the county clerk's office. marriage certificates, death certificates. birth certificates. having that in a more user-friendly way where you can do it online. so, those-i would focus on at this first year so that there would be-you can see the benefits of how having this program and having someone with the right skill set can deliver this in a-in the time frames we promised to the board of supervisors dynasty in your frustration supervisor kim which is why i want a separate team within city administrators office. >> the timing. supervisor
12:28 am
tammy >> supervisor yee >> in regards to what you're trying to do i don't think i am have any issues with the city trying to do this. the question i would have is we have a whole department come at this it, and we talked about this just trying to consolidate as much as possible so that were not having different departments doing their own thing. it just feels to me like it's moving in the opposite direction. so, what your comments around that? pretty soon one of every department to mature as insane, we need this to >> this is not take away the department technologies work
12:29 am
load. they were actually working hand-in-hand with us. the video much of the technical architecture of this. this is bigger then maybe the digital service is a confusing name. this is really about the public experience and the customer experience more than just setting of the technical architecture. it's going into those departments and saying, what is the business processes hear? how can we streamline this? with short-term rental summits actively working with the treasury tax collector's office and their process with a patrick guy in the opposite short-term rental would be assessor recorder and how do we streamline our different processes so that it just one. that's bigger than an it person role. that is having a change agent, someone looking at actual paper processes not automating something that is not sufficient and going across different departments to do it. again, this is like this
12:30 am
endeavor will take more than three position could it's working hand-in-hand with the department of technology. not taking work away from the department of technology and they should be quite frankly focusing just our fundamentals, network. fixing our network. fixing managing our data. managing our internet. managing our telephone that's like the core business of the department of technology. >> you know, i'm inclined to want something like this to happen. it's true that you go out in the field people talk complain all the time about oh my god, i can't figure this thing out. however, there's a piece of it where, given that you're going to have this unit, are you going to accomplish that were not? i don't know. are you asking us to put this to the ongoing? i'm wondering if we could put some qualifiers around this insane but give it a shot for one year budget it for one year and come back our
12:31 am
next budget cycle and say, this is what we've done. so that at least early, everything were comfortable you guys actually have would be moving in the right direction and accomplishing something >> the problem with that another deal to two counts 01 your position. not to get the right person to come in and want to be able to-i won't have the right skill set or be able to recruit the right person to come and take this job it is just a one-year job there's no guarantee that i might have a longer-term position. so that makes me a lot uncomfortable. to do that. [inaudible] out there is if i would ask for the position of authority and then
12:32 am
let me go to the other enterprise departments to say, because people believe in this program, from the good government efficiency standpoint, let's see back in recruit from them. 12 fund the position below me have the position authority and give back the >> mr. chairman and the committee, i think that's a reasonable compromise because then the general fund then you have a general fund savings from this position. if the committee decides that the position is necessary in the first place, but if the committee will decide to have this position, and with the department just proposed what ms. kelly just propose is to fund it using non-general fund monies. >> okay i better take [inaudible] this kelly you're proposing position authority but no budgetary authority from the general fund years one and two on this position? >> yes >> okay >> i can live with that. >> supervisor tang >> that proposal would be fine with me. i would just say that
12:33 am
i haven't seen our small business portal launched in the last what, year or two i probably would've been very skeptical of this project but just seen without was able to do with the public, i do believe that we have the talent and we will need to attract more talent to make this happen citywide. so, actually, i really hope everyone has used that portal to see what's possible here. >> okay. with that, colleagues if i can summarize potentially our thoughts, is that we would accept a budget analyst recommendations on our city administrators budget with the exception of allowing the position authority for the just the position of the digital services program and then also, not accepting the contract compliance officers cuts, except, we are going to have them start january 1.
12:34 am
colleagues, is that consistent? >> yes >> ms. kelly, is that something that works for you? colleagues, can have a motion to that effect? moved and seconded. do we need any clarification over here at all? okay. we can take it without objection. supervisor kim? so moved >>[gavel] >> thank you. i know mr. kaczynski zero department of homelessness. i think we have a defined this agreement hears we can work on that. >>good morning, supervisors and thank you for calling me here today. we appreciate the work we been doing with the-and very close to have a few areas where we disagree. just to. actually, the position, 095320933 which
12:35 am
is the deputy director for external affairs position, as well as the transferring a position from an 0923 282917 per director of communications and strategic planning. all other recommendations we are now in agreement with, including pleasing on reserve the funding which would be available should the sales tax measure passed. >> okay. colleagues from any questions write up? mr. rose, we go to your report please >> yes good demos of the committee, the two disagreements with the first one is on page 25. what we are stating is a recommended downward substitution for one deputy director three position.
12:36 am
with a salary of $180,000. to a manager five position, with a salary of 168.049. the mayor's office is requested three deputy director three positions in the new department of homelessness in supportive services of which one is a new position and to our substitutions of existing positions. the proposed downward substitution is consistent with the function of the proposed position, which oversees the communications and external affairs and supervision-the supervisor seven staff. so that's the basis of our recommendation on page 25 and the other disagreement, actually, there's partial agreement on this. let me clarify. on page 26, we are recommending a savings. there's two separate line items but professional and specialized services. we are recommending a savings of 96.178. the department does agree with 63, 326 of that 96.178. they disagree with the balance, which is 32 852 of that 96 170. what we've stated is, to reduce
12:37 am
professional context to account for twitter $50,000 in contra costa strategic planning and needs assessment and the downward substitution from one term manager to position to support this strategic planning needs assessment process with salary and mandatory fringe benefits of 186.674 which we added by the mayor's office of technical adjustment to the one new limited term, 29.17 program support analyst position. salary and benefits fringe benefits of 150.822. the specter the temporary salaries, which is not in fiscal year 16-17. that is in fiscal year 17-18 on the top of page 26 on the right-hand side, the department disagrees with that recommendation. that's a savings of $33,000. our recommendation is to reduce and achieve that savings temporary salaries to reflect the
12:38 am
difference in the salary and fringe benefit costs due to the downward substitution from the one manager to position to be submitted by the mayor's office of technical adjustment. this is when 29.17 program support analyst position as we have recommended. >> college, any questions or comments for mr. rose was that? okay. i'll just voice my opinion here. i think given the amount of work that's going in here creating a new department we want to give our department is much in my opinion, leeway and authority as possible and were talking a small amount of cuts. i would be in favor of accepting mr. rose's recognition except for these two positions to mr. kaczynski has articulated but what further discussion, colleagues. supervisor tang >> i would support that as well. the two positions. >> okay. can i entertain a
12:39 am
motion than? the with no other questions? moved and seconded. we can take that without objection. >>[gavel] >> thank you mr. kaczynski. congratulations on being done with your first budget season. okay lease but not last a police department. thank you for being you. in deference to supervisor avalos is been patiently waiting or 01 allow him to speak before we get moving or in cases other commitments. >> thank you. i been paying attention working and following along. so thank you for your work. i just want to say that this idea about the reserve is something that i'm still going to be pursuing. i have actually reached out to the chief to make sure we can have
12:40 am
conversations before july 19, when the board will have the budget in our hands. at that time, we can make a motion about doing a reserve. i did come out, i think on june 1, when the mayor first announced the budget. the board chamber, i said we would do look at doing a reserve and i said $29. having a look at work closely at the budget and seen to enter nine dollars at about $577 million budget, and how much is for wages and benefits, $200 million seems-would be too sizable to allow the department to carry out its work towards reforms making sure that their implement it throughout the department, so i will be making an effort for a smaller reserve. but, one that can work towards holding the department
12:41 am
accountable to agreed-upon metrics about how we measure reform happening in the use of force, and employment of crisis intervention teams, at the precinct level, not just training, but employment of those teams. as well as, looking at officers, how officers are hired, promoted, especially laterals. and looking at disciplinary action in the event of racial profiling. so, those are the measurements were putting in place and i'll be working to make sure that they are really specific and measurable metrics that can be before us and we would-if for making the reserve at the full board, it would require a hearing at the full board that the public. i was just talking with one of the commanders, commander lee that could be something we could do as a joint meeting between the board of supervisors and the
12:42 am
police commission because really the whole effort of reform should be directly under their purview. what i think it makes sense that we have a joint commission to do that. so, his mother reserve, i think, would be one that can make sure the department can have flexibility in his budget to be able to carry out the responsibility of carrying out the reforms and ensure that the department is able to do the work of its contribution to public safety in san francisco. >> thank you supervisor avalos. with that, to our police department and thank you for being here and for your continued work on the budget. >> good morning supervise the deputy chief hector on behalf of chief tony chaplin. supervisors, that apartment has been discussing the recommendation internally and
12:43 am
also with the budget and was office and we developed an alternate proposal that we want to submit to you. are prepared to submit to you today for your consideration. with that i like to call up cfo kathryn mcguire to discuss the details of this proposal. >> thank you very much. >> good morning supervise. catherine acquired from sfpd. so, the concept of our proposal is essentially that we would cut our health benefits costs in year 1 x 500,000 dollars, and then increasing that to $1 million in year two with an additional $89,000 $149 the we have available intervening balance for public safety building furniture fixtures and any budget. then, finally, we would realize $1 million in current years salary savings we would be able to offer to the committee at this point. then, so that is alternative proposal and were happy to entertain any questions that you might have.
12:44 am
i think that deputy chief sinus is able to speak to the items regarding reform that we are not that apartment is not prepared to accept those to be put on reserve. >> okay. colleagues come any questions right now? i'm sure we'll have discussion you. any questions at the second? this arose when we go to your report. >> is a chairman and members of the committee, as you know the recommendations start on page 17 of our report. let me state that the police department continues to disagree with every single one of our recommendations. my understanding is that the mayor's office and the police department proposal for alternative recommendations total 1.5 million in 16-17 and twitter $50,000 and 17-18. i could be wrong on that but that's our understanding. i've
12:45 am
not seen this proposal in writing myself. as compared to our-and that compares to our recommended reductions of $2.1 million and 16-17 and $1.79 and 17-18. the reductions proposed by the mayor's office and the police department did not reflect our analysis and recommendations to the police department's proposed budget in any way shape or form. we consider approval of these alternative productions get odyssey, to be a policy matter for the committee. further, we continue to recommend a reserve 01 $.4 million in fiscal year 16-17 percentages related to police reform measures. let me make one other comments about it. if it apartment is now stating to this committee that they can give you $1 million in
12:46 am
salary savings, think about that statement supervisors. you know that there's a lot more than $1 million if they are stating here today that they can achieve $1 million worth of salary savings. in the exact same manner they've achieved millions of dollars, two, three, four, $5 billion of salary savings the last 4-5 years. so, taking a million-dollar offering $1 million to this committee in my judgment is not a very good proposal. one other point, supervisors, and this relates to the police department. regarding the dist. atty.'s budget, we were told yesterday by the mayor's office that the mayor cementing technical adjustments of $1.99 and the dist. atty. 16-17 budget, which includes one senior positions related to officer involved shootings, please misconduct and conviction reviews. these new positions would cost $2.5 million in 17-18. we that no one opportunity whatsoever to analyze the justification for
12:47 am
these 14 new positions can therefore, we recommend the budget and finance committee places do expenditures in the district attorney's office of $1.99 in fiscal year 16-17 and $2.5 million in fiscal year 17-18 on budget compliance committee reserve if the committee decides to approve those positions so that the mayor's office can submit a cover the plan presents new resources related to police reform measures and so the budget and legislative analyst can view such expenditures and report back to the budget and finance committee. i'll be happy to respond to any questions >> thank you mr. rose. supervisor tang >> actually had a quick question for the police department if you had a hard copy of your alternative proposal? >> i believe something is on its way. >> thank you. >> okay. supervisor yee >> i like to hear your response 40 overtime reduction that the budget analyst is recommending because maybe i'm
12:48 am
following his logic in terms of the reason why we would've had the need for more overtime in general about the special events. it's because of the lack of police officers or the under number that we want to get to some of which is the 1971 and it seems like this year between this year and next her with all the academy classes we will be catching up which means that it, it's logical to assume that the need for overtime is going to be reduced. >> supervisor, i'm happy to address that question. so, i lead a rate that the request we made in our budget was a $3.6 million move of money from
12:49 am
existing budget into the overtime budget that is reflective of the amount of money that we spend on court they come in and when the city and i think i said this in the last hearing so pardon the repetition, i can be when the city transferred over to the new payroll system, payroll coding changed, and so where our payroll for court date was getting premium pay previously, it is now hitting overtime. so, we are now changing the budget to reflect that change. so the 3.6 billion dollar increase in overtime budget reflects that change. it doesn't actually reflect an increase in overtime or an expenditure in general. but to address your question that further, we have-i have a slide if the our media services can switch us over there. it shows that-i can just walk
12:50 am
through this it doesn't change over. our use of overtime is 26% for defense. court appearances represent 22%. arrests are 21% get investigation 17%, ongoing police operations such as homeless outreach and those sorts of things is 7.8%. dignitary visits is 4.5 and critical incident response such as what involvement is 1.7%. so, as you can see you dance don't actually constitute a preponderance of our overtime usage and we don't have any backfill so to speak of officers we don't do that. such as maybe the fire department or other department might need to with the sheriffs department might need to fill a fixed post. >> mr. chairman, members of the committee supervisor yee, on page 18 of our report i
12:51 am
won't read this explanation, but let me state having listened to that apartment, nothing whatsoever changes in the expedition as to why we have recommended a reduction of 1.6 million dollars in the overtime account with related mandatory benefits. >> okay. colleagues, any further discussion were questions? we are going to wait to see on that out of deference the proposal back. so, we will be hearing when we go into recess for 5 min. and -is that a reasonable time to -we will be in recess for 5 min. and we will be back. thanks. >>[gavel] >>[recess]. >> welcome back from recess
12:52 am
everyone. ronald gregory scheduled board of supervisors meeting for june 22, 2016. i should say budget and finance committee of the board of supervisors. we are back hearing item 2 and three that i was a quickly on the record, the party had public comment for our budget this year for two and three so we are not going to have more public comment was a i asked our clerk
12:53 am
to make sure were clarified on that on the record. with that, we are police department up perhaps to our cfo, could you work this through the discussion on item here. >> so, as i mentioned before, the initial-we have health benefits cut of about $500,000 in the first year, which would increase to $1 million in the second year. he 8001 $94 that's available from-a remaining balance on project that was for the furniture and fixtures in the public safety building. then, $1 million in salary savings the current year that would be available for use and that is the summary of our proposal. >> okay. before any questions,
12:54 am
mr. rose i'm looking at your reports. i want to be cleared. so, your recommendations in year one total 2,000,000.065229? so, the departments basically suggesting 1589 of that. just think about numbers >> absolutely >> you propose basically 1.7 in year two and a proposing one flat >> correct >> so can you talk about in your one recommendation the ongoing savings versus the one-time savings that you're recommending here? >> either broad level or what- >> sure. on page 18 of our report where we talked about actually, the first recommendation on page 18, we are talking about ongoing
12:55 am
savings of-and this is the overtime. so that would be ongoing savings which is about $1.6 million. that would continue the ongoing savings. >> that is the overtime chunk, correct? >> correct. i would mention to the committee if you think about it, the department had spent $2.9 million in overtime this year for the super bowl. there is no super bowl next year. all of the balance of the savings mr. chairman, our one-time savings. that includes the attrition savings on the bottom of page 18 and that amount was approximately $20,000. do you see that on the bottom of page 18? on page 19, there is programmatic budgets
12:56 am
good that's $114,000. again, that's one-time savings. we point out that the mayor's 16-17 budget for the body camera program of $3.3 million is two and $73 .423 more when the amount requested by their common in $553,000 more than the amount budgeted in 15-16. then, ken attrition savings of $183,000 that is to account for delays in hiring timelines. good this is just one time for a hiring position. that's why we said it's a one-time savings as opposed to ongoing. again, the same thing on that that was $183,000 in the last one $119,000 on the bottom of page 19, again, that's for hiring
12:57 am
timelines. so that's- >> all right. that is helpful >> i would also point out, supervisors, we do have the recommendations. i think we can explain these for putting monies on the reserve, on pages 20 and 21 and 22 report and be happy to respond to any questions in that regard. just, in summary, when the department offers salary savings of $1 million, which they did, and here in 2013-14, that apartment had surplus salaries of 4.5 million, and 14-15 3.75 and 15-16 $2 million, to offer 1 million and even our recommendations, we are leaving millions of dollars on the table with our very conservative recommendations. >> thank you mr. rose. supervisor kim
12:58 am
>> thank you mr. rose. i apologize for making you repeat these numbers again. but you had mentioned salary savings over the last three years amounting to way above the $1 million that the police department is offering this. could you repeat 03 numbers again? >> absolutely. and 13, 14, $4,500,000. this is surplus salary savings in the three years. 13-14, 3 million and 15-16, julian .467 4472. at last, that 15-16 is even with the 3 million, or 2.9 million, with the extra overtime for the super bowl. >> got it. thank you mr. rose. so, back to the police department. given that in the last three years you had much larger surplus salary savings at four, three and $2 million, could you explain why you're only offering 1 million in return this following your? >> supervisors, unfortunately i'm not familiar with the
12:59 am
numbers that the legislative analyst is citing. we often see those salary savings but they're offset by other costs within what his character over over one of total salary budget. so, when we have shortfalls in other locations that in those salary savings make up for. with regards to 15-16, we are projecting and it is reflected in the budget analyst report, were projected $18.39 cost and 50-16 for overtime of which, yes, if you were to look back out super bowl, that brings us to $15.4 million in the current year. our budget is $15.1 million. so, with respect to overtime, that
1:00 am
is the proposal. >> can you explain your disagreement on the attrition savings that the dla report has attributed the $20,000 in september, $119,000 and the $183,000? >> again we pull up to a little bit higher level when were balancing our budget. were looking at right now and 15-16 we have 38 physicians budgeted for attrition. we currently we have 37 positions of baking. moving into the new fiscal year with the positions have been proposed in the budget. that's five more positions. this would increase our attrition rates by four positions so we would only be able to-we would not be able to hire those positions and were getting in the budget because we already have so many positions filled that we would be able to make those higher >> so, if we approve these attrition reductions it would prevent the police department from hiring for officers, for
1:01 am
replacement officers? >> for of those five positions >> for civilian physicians? >> for our [inaudible] and if it is civilian >> four of five civilian positions and one is managing some of the reform efforts? >> four positions are [inaudible] related >> what does that mean to be reformulated? >> meeting a result for reform and two at mit positions that support analytical functions and or development of a number of cold walls for reform. one is managing reform response to reform and really project managing all the changes that are happening >> at is done through civilian, not through one of this one officers of the police department? >> it reports with deputy chief and so project manager still is not necessarily it doesn't necessarily have to be is one this would
1:02 am
delay the hire of those positions? >> correct >> okay, thank you >> mr. chairman, just to the chair, our recommendation is based on the report of 17 vacancies the department currently has. that's what they reported to us. it's merely saying, this is how long it's been it take to hire these positions and to adjust the attrition accordingly. it's recognizing reality, not sort of a budget number. so it's really very practical recommendation. >> okay. colleagues from any other conversations were questions? perhaps supervisor yee
1:03 am
>> before going to move forward with this, i'm comfortable not taking the recommendations of the budget analyst in regards to these particular positions that supervisor kim was just discussing. i am comfortable supporting the analysts recommendation with the overtime and the rationale for that is that it's true were not have a super bowl that the cost of stars 2.6-is a 2.6?-of overtime. so, this is not 2.6 that he's recommending but 1.6. so i am comfortable with that recommendation. >> okay. supervisor kim >> no. [inaudible] >> supervisor tang >> thank you. i'll just in
1:04 am
response to supervisor yee's recognition i think not overtime issue i do understand in terms of the change in the accounting program as well as i know the budget analyst p super bowl issue. however, we did have less officers back then, correct? >> yes >> so we are going to more officers as we graduate more academy classes and so in terms of just saying that because we do not have the super bowl then we don't need to have the overtime for next year, i don't know if that really completely make sense. i do know if you can elaborate on that olivia ward? >> i be happy to sort of show you a little bit about her overtime actuals in the last few years. i have a slide
1:05 am
sorry, i can't tell if it's up. only the media services can switch on the slide projector. >> we can see it here >> great. as you see the little small bars on top of the greater big blue bars represent that court page that we been talking about and so you'll see and 13-14 the actual court page that switch happened in the years of the court pay was actually $3.2 million in that year and in so as you can see, our overtime for that year would have been was $13.4 million. then, we move into 14-15 and its $14.2 million in move into 15-16 and its $15.4 million. if you start factoring in: was and those sorts of things that really is where a budget increases are happening. were not talking about an
1:06 am
increase-i wish i actually had that slide to show you the number of hours that were working overtime and so as you can see, it's not a huge increase in overtime that we are talking about. were not talking about an increase in overtime in the budget either. >> okay. i mean, i feel like the alternative proposal is very close to what the budget analyst had recommended. i understand the ongoing actually let me clarify. is the alternative proposal to $1.5 million you proposed in cuts, is that ongoing? were just one-time? >> the $500,000 in health is ongoing. >> so that's the only one? >> correct >> mr. chairman, i just want to
1:07 am
clarify one thing on our overtime proposed it is also still out the super bowl were talking about when we are talking about the change in year-to-year from overtime. which is there also be 160 more please officers in the street and even some of the slide earlier some amount of overtime is incurred just for routine police patrol. we think within addition of regular police and concerns certainly a change in the number of major events by not having the super bowl, that there will in fact be a decrease in overtime over the current year. we also believe our recommendation is account the shifting of court pay from premium pay into the overtime bundle. so we believe the overtime recommendation, because some amount of overtime and scheduling of overtime is discretionary in the police department's park. they have in prior years been able to bring the overtime down. it's been inching up her recent years as police tapping those up we would like to see a corresponding decrease in the overtime. >> supervisor yee
1:08 am
>> thank you for that expiration. that sort of hours looking at it logically. there is-you do not have the required number of police officers available, so you would need more overtime. i am inclined to , again, support the analysts recommendation. it's not to say that if this, going into the next year, if there is actually some evidence that you really need more overtime that we-i think we've done this before where we ashley get a supplemental for overtime? in the past? so if that point would you feel like the budget amount is not enough and you really need more, and you just show us why you need it, i would be supporting a supplemental the right now, i'm not seeing that.
1:09 am
>> okay. supervisor kim >> i was can it concur with supervisor yee. i do support the budget legislative analyst recommendation on overtime and i agree if there's additional need the police department can as they have in the past come to the full board for a supplemental. i do support actually the attrition reduction. i'm that i don't think at budget committee but they seem to be reasonable requests that being said, i'm happy to prove move forward with the overtime recordation put forward by the dla. >> supervisor tang >> here's an idea media compromise. what if we put that overtime amount on reserve? budget committee reserve and if we were to do that, will be the impact of that we pick >> the overtime amount on reserve i guess that could be a
1:10 am
good customize actually because it's either that or we come for supplemental anyway. so because is my slide shows, we are projecting 15.4 this year. our budget is 15.1. so, we would be-if the budget comes down by 1.7, 1.6 million, they will be coming back for supplemental anyway so we put on reserve were coming back to you to talk through those things. we can do that >> supervisor yee >> my preference would be that we don't put that piece on reserve because if we do there's now not available for anything else. i would be willing to take, instead of 1.6 the budget analyst is suggesting, that we reduce it by 1.1 so that ongoing will end up to be the same with the
1:11 am
ongoing savings would benefit health payment of 1.6. >> supervisor yee could you articulate that one more time? >> if i'm just focusing on the ongoing, which the overtime would provide 1.6 of ongoing savings, the police department suggested some other proposals which one of them is the budgeted health payment and i think the fringes change in which we said that this would be only piece that is ongoing. >> i thought that was one time but that is the ongoing peace the 500,000? >> either thousand and going to your 1 million in year two. >> right >> so i am suggesting the compromise would be that we take 1.1 of the overtime to be
1:12 am
reduced instead of 1.6. and that the net result would be pretty much the same of 1.6 ongoing savings could >> okay. >> so, so i'm just trying to understand here just so we are could. 1.1 on ot >> to reduce it by 1.1. >> that's in years one and two? >> yes. >> is there anything else? sorry- >> i believe to accept the 500,000 fringe change as proposed by the police about it and both budget health payment over the two years so a total of 1.6 savings. is that correct
1:13 am
supervisor trini yee >> yes. again, the recommendation on the budget analyst for reduction of the overtime is 1.6. so i'm trying to get to a a similar figure that ongoing good so one way to do that is to accept the budget budgeted health payment or fringe benefits of $500,000 and to reduce the overtime by only $1.1 million, which would still get you 1.6. >> so that would-so that would equivocate equate to 1.6 and both years? >> correct >> those are the only propose cuts for them? to our police department >> that would not accept the other cuts then
1:14 am
>> that the but it >> i recently attempted to our department and budget analyst >> i like to communicate the impact about $1 million cut on overtime. we currently have the final class committed to the department that will bring us to that full mandate of staffing of 1971. with that final class, we will spend all of our salary dollars. the amount that is sane in uniform salary. with that that means we will not have in the past, when we come for supplemental appropriation, there is been no need to increase sources or increase the budget overall because we just move the money from salary savings to overtime. we won't be able to do that. so, we would have to be generating a new million dollars we come for back for
1:15 am
supplemental appropriation, if we do do that. >> supervisor kim >> thank you. with a $1 million in salary savings that you already have in your budget today, what would happen to that $1 million? you could not use that overtime? >> i'm sorry. that's and 15-16 savings and that would be up to the mayor and the controller's office to be able to >> so salary savings goes back into the general fund? >> correct >> i still feel comfortable moving forward with this given we have 160 new opposite. by the way my general preference we had as many officers as possible so we can reduce overtime. i think it's important for us to have to fill out the department and the promises being delivered this year. so, for me it's hard to justify the overtime requested a given the new officers and also given, as the bl eight pointed out the super bowl is
1:16 am
not happening this a good i do feel comfortable with this and i also know the board has always supported a supplemental appropriation in the past with overtime. and i think that if you, and there's a justified reason for that that the board will support that. >> supervisor weiner >> thank you. first of all, the 1971, were not going to hit that until very late in the fiscal year. supper starting out the fiscal year 1971. it's not even close. if that were the case and of course i think were all in agreement that it's better to have people staffed rather than lie on overtime good with the fire department and mandatory overtime is. we are fixing up at the 1971 is not going to be hit until the end of your and that's even
1:17 am
assuming 1971 is a real number that i know we have a dispute on the board of supervisors on that issue. 1971 is a number set 30 years ago when we were smaller city but putting that aside it will not be hit after the late in the fiscal year. yes, the department can always come back to us pray supplemental for overtime and we know how that goes. whether it's the surest opponent or any other time and coming midyear for supplemental and not a supplemental reallocating existing budget, but actually asking to tap into the reserves to fund overtime and there will be a whole melodrama at the board of supervisors about because no one will remember this vote today. this is responsible department could predict its own overtime and is coming back to the board of supervisors meeting year to tap into our budget reserve to ask for overtime. when you could have just done it during the normal budget prosecute well, they are asking the during the noble normal budget process to have that overtime because they're not going to have the salaries to be able to shift over mid year. they are telling us that this is the overtime
1:18 am
that there needed. they're willing to make concessions and i appreciate the department doing that. but i don't want to discuss/in and asked her $5000 in overtime simply because we think it's a good number for us to bring into the budget. we know obviously the super bowl there's no super bowl but we know there's many reasons growing demands in the department of parks under normal neighborhood trolls that all sorts of events and protests and festivals and other happenings in san francisco with the department does not get cost recovery. we don't tell protests were street festivals, you have to start reimbursing the department for all the cost it's not what we had those are not our values as their savior we pay for that out of the general fund and that appropriate thing. but when we start restricting or making it hard for the department to use [inaudible]
1:19 am
what that means when the department has to put extra coverage for a protest worse festival or whatever other unpredictable thing may happen, that means we have fewer officers in our neighborhoods. so, i don't agree with this additional $500,000 in overtime cut. i think you'll undermine the department's ability to good public safety in san francisco. >> supervisor avalos >> thank you. if i were the committee i would take the motion and if it's not done here then it can be done at the full board and i do my melodrama. it seems like there's melodrama every meeting we have at the board of supervisors. i think this would this room was actually made to absorb melodrama. there's a lot in the crevices of the word. so i've no problem with that happening. it just what we do here at the board of supervisors. and, i commend the department for-and all of city
1:20 am
hall-forgetting us close to the 1971 number. we are not far away from the number because were actually now within striking distance of the next fiscal year to be will to choose 1971 and to me, that is significant can i think in the whole time i've been working at city hall we've only been there for a few months in 2009-2010. and we had a lot of retirements happened since then but we made a considerable effort over the years to make sure that we are at this place right now and so, as were hiring more officers were not in any to have as much overtime. i will than willing to roll the dice we can actually put a ceiling on it naturally to see the department and employee more effectively and more efficiently so that overtime won't be needed and we won't have to do a supplemental later on and hopefully, i will be in next year but i want to make sure that were setting up a high standard for lever is coming in to make decisions on
1:21 am
what the overtime budget should be and i think ratcheting down by today would be helpful. >> thank you supervisor avalos. colleagues on the not wanting to suggest that good i think were in a range zero dollar buys good thing is a little bit whatever the buckets go. supervisor yee were just discussing quickly want to do this the right way. sue so, odyssey, e supervisor weiner's comments on what is affecting our staffing levels and so forth. but i also want to make sure we do it right that a committee members phenomena suggest that it would go in recess for lunch. we will back at about 1 pm. then in the dump what i'm going to suggest is we work out continue to discuss the next hour please may be between you and some of the budget committee members and a budget analyst and see if we can come to
1:22 am
1:23 am
1:24 am
1:25 am
1:26 am
1:27 am
1:28 am
1:29 am
1:30 am
1:31 am
1:32 am
1:33 am
1:34 am
1:35 am
1:36 am
>> okay, good evening everybody welcome back to the san francisco board of supervisors budget and finance committee for june 22, 2016. we are reconvening we have items number two and three on the agenda. right now, we have supervisor cohen has been inserted as a committee vice-chairman. replacing supervisor tang temporarily. colleagues, we want to do is go into recess. will be reconvening until tam >> you contend it continue
1:37 am
these items to tomorrow's meeting >> okay. colleagues, motioned them to continue this will take public comment. and you one wish to comment on on items two and three seeing none, public comment is closed. >>[gavel] >> a motion to continue items two and three june 23 we pick moved and seconded. we can take that without objection >>[gavel] >> any other business in front of us >> no other business >> thank you, everybody. we are adjourned. >>[gavel] >>[adjournment] >> the office of controllers whistle blower program is how
1:38 am
city employees and recipient sound the alarm an fraud address wait in city government charitable complaints results in investigation that improves the efficiency of city government that. >> you can below the what if anything, by assess though the club program website arrest call 4147 or 311 and stating you wishing to file and complaint point controller's office the charitable program also accepts complaints by e-mail or 0 folk you can file a complaint or provide contact information seen by whistle blower investigates some examples of issues to be recorded to the whistle blower program face of misuse of city
1:39 am
government money equipment supplies or materials exposure activities by city clez deficiencies the quality and delivery of city government services waste and inefficient government practices when you submit a complaint to the charitable online complaint form you'll receive a unique tracking number that inturgz to detector or determine in investigators need additional information by law the city employee that provide information to the whistle blower program are protected and an employer may not retaliate against an employee that is a whistle blower any employee that retaliates against another that employee is subjected up to including submittal employees that retaliate will personal be liable please visit the sf and
1:40 am
information on reporting retaliation that when fraud is loudly to continue it jeopardizes the level of service that city government can provide in you hear or see any dishelicopter behavior boy an employee please report it to say whistle blower program more information and the whistle blower protections please seek www. >> good morning, everyone. welcome to the san francisco board of supervisor finance meeting for june 23, 2016. my name is mark farrell. i'll be chairing the committee joined by my -- to my right by my -- our katy tang and nor man