tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 22, 2018 12:00pm-1:01pm PDT
office? this is mayor's office and it is a bit fluid. that number is dependent on how the mayor's office allocates among approximately 40 budget and funded for the mayor's administration and it is a choice for mayoral administration about how they allocate those staff. under the current administration, there are four staff dedicated towards mom's work. however, that is a choice for the next mayor administration to make and they could have fewer than four. they could have more than four. and so it is not a set mon's budget. >> can you tell me what they do? >> the primary point of engagement for the public with the mayor's office. they have three core functions.
and they organize many cultural events in city hall. and vef over 300 and organize mayor participation and giveaways such as events at public housing sites such as back pac give aways for -- backpack give aways for children, toy drives, and christmas tree and turkey give aways during the holidays. they conduct meetings and with town halls and community groups as they arrive, and reportedly this past spring they organized the open door chats to have direct discussions with the
mayor about priorities and they had six sessions to facilitate and members coming into the office with to triage concerns of residents and work with 301 and 20 to 40 walk-ins per day and over 50 emails a day. and they help triage people in need of housing, noise complaints, potholes, many of the similar complaints that i imagine your offices receive. and they provide staffing to the mayor and community. and currently organize that. so the positions are at the mayor's discretion and can move them around and make it larger and smaller.
my concerns is we do much of what you said in the district offices and have more of our ear to the ground to constituents when you talk about emails and every one of us probably get that many emails a day, but we have direct service to serve our neighborhoods in that capacity as supervisors. so i actually have only been a supervisor a year and a half, but and i don't see that department at action at all in my habd. so we take the pothole complaints and organizing of community events and community
building. i actually think that this funding should transfer over to the board of supervisors budget so that the board of supervisors has resources and each and every one of their offices to respond to constituents' needs. anyway, that is my personal opinion and i wanted to share it. thanks. colleagues, are there any other questions? supervisor ronen? oh my gosh. i'm sorry. supervisor fewer, are you wrapped up? thank you. supervisor stefani. nothing? okay. all right. well, thank you for your presentation. thank you for your comments. i don't have any specific questions about the mayor's office and willing to accept the b.l.a. cuts. i am not interested in cuts to the mayor's office of neighborhood services or for the four additional positions that are in that department.
so i am just signalling to my colleagues just where i am on this. >> if i can add, i am not supportive of that either. i think with mayor elect breed out of respect for her and how she wants to design her administration and specifically the mayor's office of neighborhood services, i think that i am completely comfortable with those positions staying there and letting her decide how she wants to run that department. i have been hear quite some time, and i have worked well with them in the past from 2007 on, so i am fine with keeping it the way that it is. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: thank you. i think supervisor fewer raises some good questions. i actually have not had much interaction with them at all, so i have no idea what they do. maybe one of the things we can do moving forward is so you have a hearing to see what they actually do just so we can fully understand.
so let me make a motion to accept the b.l.a. cuts. is there a second? second by supervisor yee. can we take that without objection? without objection. thank you. next from the department of technology. welcome back, linda. good to see you. >> good morning, late morning, early afternoon. the department is in agreement with the b.l.a. and the recommendations so do not have any outstanding issues. i believe from the first
presentation there was some questions around the fiber s.f. project and how that budget might change with the change of work plans for the 18-19 budget. so the handout that i am sharing is a description of how the project plan would change and what would be accomplished. what would be accomplished is to do a market study on the revenue that could be expected from and how that revenue would be structured. how it would change over time and there are a number of ways to look at this kind of revenue. we would like to truly understand what we can expect from this infrastructure as we evaluate options with a public-private partnership.
we also need to do some engineering work and some research on the utility conditions in the city. how many poles are truly available. what are our options around digging or using existing construction projects that are underway to help deflate some of the cost of construction. then the third component would be a demonstration set of hardware to test how the network would operate. we want to insure privacy and net neutrality and that we have an open access environment that will support multiple i.s.p.s and providers. and so what you are seeing is that estimate is around $2 million. we have a carry forward balance in the fund of $500,000, so the
request for 18-19 is $1.5 for that body of work. awe>> supervisor cohen: does that conclude your presentation? thank you very much. let's hear from the b.l.a. and we recommend productions totalling $1,927,361. and of the reductions, $26,732 are ongoing savings and the one-time savings and this is alouing an increase of 8.2% or 9.5 million. in year two we have recommended reductions that total $26, r,927 and that is young going savings. and i am prepared to cut the $1.3 and the b.l.a. made a
recommendation and i will be basing my decision on how you respond and you are already winning. i love that color. and what do these add that the existing study does not? >> this is really on the ground work. and people that heard from the firms and the request for qualifications and the risk factors and the construction and this is a complex urban environment and would want to push down the construction costs as much as possible. and the way we take risk out of this project is by understanding that and quantifying that to the providers that also allows them
and the project plan and that is why it's so important and will also normalize the bids that receive to fairly compare them against the baseline. >> all right. and is this project manager position in addition to the existing project manager? >> right now that position is unfilled. so we would need to evaluate the resources on this. >> supervisor cohen: and we can just take it until you get a little closer to figure out what you are going to do. >> we need someone to do this work and the reduction to take it from the d.t. >> supervisor cohen: and you have a project manager all right. >> not a project -- i would not call the person a project
manager. an analyst that was helping with writing of the request for proposal. what was the cut? >> i don't really remember. i can get that information. thank you. and that is the fiber to public housing. how is that money spent? one of the capital requests that the department of technology submitted. and what that project does is -- >> supervisor cohen: let me ask a question. when did the department submit
this request? >> in the process of submitting capital requests months ago. >> supervisor cohen: what time of the year? >> january. >> supervisor cohen: it was your department that submitted that request, right? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: did you reach out to the supervisors that deal with public housing? >> a public housing request? no, we have been working through the mayor's office. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> about the public housing, this is to close the digital divide and envisioned by mayor lee to use some of the broadband money and funding to extend the fiber network to the public housing units. and last year 1100 units were connected to fiber and not just the fiber in the ground. many of the units require inside
wiring to be completed. and in hunters view and allenesview and with that number. >> supervisor cohen: that is a decent number, but we have thousands. >> there are about 7,000 from my understanding. and for last year, a budget of $700,000 and this year a budget of $500, and i am requesting $200 from the broadband carry forward for that work. holly court, hunter's point west, east, and westbrook and west side courts were completed last year. >> supervisor cohen: what is the plan to spend this 500k? >> looking forward to locations from rosa parks, woodward gar n
gardens, hunter's view, possibly valencia gardens and alice griffith. >> supervisor cohen: all right. so that is the next property locations and $500,000 and that is into a larger network, right? >> the city fiber. >> supervisor cohen: let me get straight to the point. we spend $500,000 to connect and get the units to connect to the city's fiber network, but there is no real city fiber network. >> two things. one is the city fiber network connects all the city facilities, all the police stations, all the fire stations, all the work locations and also provides backbone services for
the communications and radio infrastructure as well. that network was extended to supply fiber services, internet service, to public housing units. that is what the mayor wanted to do with our system. so it's shared by city departments and now public housing units. that is a different program that fiber f.s. which would deliver 1 gig service to all residents and businesses in san francisco. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you for clarifying that and making that distinction. do we have any additional proposals on how we might bridge that digital divide? >> i think this is what we really need to understand and the revenue structures and to talk with our qualified vendors
and is incredibly important. verizon is going to be coming in to talk to us. and you would find that many large cities are partnering in unique way ways with their pe and industry providers to share the cost and that is important to the city. and cellular service is changing. and changing right now. putting this infrastructure in place is really preparing us for what's coming in the next five to 10 years. it is significant. it is significant. >> supervisor cohen: you're yee?
>> supervisor yee: i have a question for b.l.a. in regards to the recommended savings, one-time savings, can you -- is there where is that coming from? 1.9 million. could you repeat that? >> supervisor yee: there is a recommendation for $1.9, approximately $1.9 one-time savings for fiscal year 2018-19. i just want to know where is that coming from? >> okay. it is a combination of three recommendations. the largest one being reducing the budget for the fiber f.s. project to reflect the revised project scope. as the r.f.p. will not be issued as originally anticipated in 18-19. so that is $1.8 million.
and then there was about $37,000 and increase attrition to reflect the hiring timeline for a vacant i.s. programmer analyst position. and that has been vacant for about a year. and then the third is for about $64,000 again to increase attrition to reflect the hiring timeline for vacant fire alarm dispatcher position which has been vacant since march of 2016. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, does that complete your questions? >> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> superviser fewer: since we have had our presentation last week and i have been speaking to colleagues on the board with concerns about fiber f.s. in general and maybe this isn't what we should be doing. and that by the time we do it, it will be antiquated somewhat.
so i am requesting that if we don't make a decision today, that we would bring this back on monday for reconsideration. >> can i share with you one interesting way to look at this? >> supervisor cohen: please. >> what is coming in the way of technology is an explosion of wireless, and then everybody thinks, oh, that's all we need. understand that wireless has to have a backhaul, the cable i brought in, and it has to have a cable. and what we're finding is in order to control cost and in order to provide an open access service, in order to really provide levels of service that the city would like to have across the city and close the digital divide, and provide that level of service to everyone, we have to put some infrastructure in. it is like putting in a road. and then the trucks can run on it and the car cans run on it and the scooter cans run on it.
everybody will have the same opportunity to use that environment to deliver service to the citizen. whether it's home security or ordering groceries or education or medical care, that is what we're talking about here is really levelling the playing field, if you will, and allowing all providers to use this environment. i think what you will find as we talk to the providers, they're willing and open to having that conversation as their environments are legacy in many respects and could use upgrading replacement. i think we'll find partners that are willing to look at other kinds of options with the city. this is happening around the country. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> but we need to study it this next year and of course, the mayor needs to prioritize the approach. >> supervisor cohen: do you have the money to study it? >> no, that is what this funding is for.
>> supervisor cohen: and so -- >> the revenue study and the environmental study. >> supervisor cohen: okay. for the market study, and revenue projection is $300,000. >> yes. the market study is $300,000 and the existing condition is million, and then the network -- 1.1 million. and the network pilot is $400,000 f and these will help us understand and come up with the alternatives we need to present back to the board and the mayor will have recommendations as well to an approach. then you will have the universe of approaches. that is what is important to the city is to understand all the options and then make some good decisions. >> supervisor cohen: what are your plans for the carry forward to the $500,000 in 17-18? >> it is just offsetting what these costs are. we would -- it just represents the reduction in need. >> supervisor cohen: and the
network part of the hardware services is part of the market study revenue projections existing utility conditions and network pilot. basically on your chart lines two, three, and foured a voe t kaing stick together? -- you are advocating to stick those together? >> correct. and remember f we don't spend it, it will -- >> supervisor cohen: when you say offset that, what do you mean? >> that sub total of $2 million and the carry-forward and if the money is not used, it is available for carry-forward in the next year for other aspects of this project or reallocation. >> supervisor cohen: and talk to me about this project manager again. >> the way we are envisioning this is we bring in an entry expert that understands fiber systems. i would like this project
manager, of course, would be a temporary position. >> supervisor cohen: how long is temporary? three years? >> one year at this point. i will expect that we will need to use contracted resources for this. so they're here to help with the evaluation and bring teams together to do the research and the findings that we need to make the deliverables happen. it is a large piece of work and we will be supporting that with analysts and policy analysts that will be helping. so it's not all the project costs. d.t. will be supporting this in a number of ways to make sure we have a good result. >> all right. i am going to turn it bam to the
b.l.a. based on the sharing of information from the director, wondering if there is any other recommendations that you want to give to us at this time recommending anymore cuts, any less cuts. anything that you heard that persuaded you? >> madam chair, members of the committee, we have nothing further to recommend to you. based on our analysis, we think this is a fair recommendation. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. colleagues, we can make a decision today or wait until monday. if there is -- if you would like to move today, we can. and sleep over it over the weekend. and make more changes on monday. >> supervisor yee: i would like to wait until monday. i think ano, ma'am fully understanding everything. >> no problem. we will see you on monday.
>> supervisor cohen: thank you. the next department that we will hear from. >> supervisors, if you could, at least in the cases where the department is in agreement with the budget analyst recommendation f we could ask for a motion. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. appreciate that. let's accept the b.l.a. base recommendati recommendation. seconded by supervisor sheehy and we take that without objection. thank you. okay. the next department presenting is the district attorney's office. hello, eugene. >> good afternoon. c.f.o. for the district attorney's office. i would first like to thank the mayor's budget office and budget analyst office for the work over the last few months and we are in full agreement with the budget analysts' report. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. like to hear from the b.l.a. >> yes. supervisors, we recommend
reductions to the proposed district attorney budget totalling $419,234 in 18-19, and all of the $419,234 in recommended reductions are one-time savings. these reductions could still allow an increase of about $5.3 million or 8.4% of the department's 18-19 budget. in addition to budget recommends closing out prior unexpended encumbrances for the total savingses of $438,000 and we do not have any recommended reductions in 19-20. and we are in agreement with the department on these. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> superviser fewer: i have nothing. >> supervisor cohen: all right. how many cases has the district attorney brought forward? >> i will refer this on.
>> supervisor cohen: perfect. thank you. >> i do not have the numbers in front of me, but it averages around 10,000. >> supervisor cohen: the last time the d.a. was here in the chamber, he didn't have the numbers with him, and they're not really published, so how do we go about getting this information? >> it is easy enough to share. i am happy to send it to you. i stopped by to see what the questions were and i understood they were going to be more around i.i.b., but i can have somebody send them over and provide them to you. it is not a problem. >> supervisor cohen: and we would appreciate that. how do you determine if something is worth investigating specific to i.i.b.? >> i. i.b. is to investigate every officer-involved shooting and in custody death and any excessive force cases presented to us. >> supervisor cohen: and everything that is referred to you is worthy of an investigation. >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: how many cases have you not brought
forward because you were thinking they were unwinnable? >> we have not filed any charges because we have not had facts that have met the california law for an officer-involved shooting. >> supervisor cohen: do you choose not to bring forward cases under the presumption they are not guilty under the law, or under the presumption they may be -- or they might be the presumption there might be, but a jury would be convinced. view view the standard we are. >> the standard we are required for filing is we have admissible evidence that will persuade a jury or a judge beyond a reasonable doubt, that we have the individual and the crime committed. >> supervisor cohen: and so the district attorney consistently refuses to investigate officers. what criteria are you using to determine that cases against
officers are unwinnable? >> so we do investigate all the cases as i just stated, supervisor, but the standard we use is the california h law and the united states supreme court cases that dictate in this area what are opportunities for when a crime is committed. >> supervisor cohen: let me jump to this so we don't have to waste anymore people's time. do you think the program is successful? and for what reason? >> i think it's successful and i think we are continuing to improve. so when we started this work, there were a lot of concerns about the way the investigations were being conducted. peru teenly were not notifies and arrived at the scene after the individual's body was removed. [please stand by]
scenario, and with the new cases that have come in, we have shrunk that now to about 154 days. the district attorney's goal was to complete that work within 180 days whenever possible, and with the staffing, we have been able to do that, so that is a dramatic improvement. we still do not have an m.o.u. signed with the police department that gives us an investigative lead on these cases. it has been a very lengthy process with the police department. chief scott has indicated his support, but we are in meet and confer with the union, and it has taken longer than our office hoped it would take to get that completed. i think that will bring an additional level of quality to the investigation, so those are the improvements i've seen to date. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so just for clarification, the standard of review for i.i.b., is it the same as a standard of review for all other criminal
cases? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and how many cases were you able to charge with the special focus of the same standard? >> so we have several force cases that we have filed. if you're asking about officer involved shootings, you know the answer to that question. >> supervisor cohen: please say it for the record to those who does not know it. >> we have not nor has any prior san francisco district attorney brought a case for an officer involved shooting. >> supervisor cohen: yes, but no other district attorney has had a specific unit created to assist them. >> yes, and this is an improvement, and i'm optimistic that where criminally appropriate, it will lead to prosecution. >> supervisor cohen: so how much money is in the i.i.b. >> 2.7. >> supervisor cohen: right. and do you think this has been a good use of money, considering that the bureau was created to bring cases forward
and ultimately with -- and get charged? we have not got anything charged, so nothing has stuck, so is this a good use of taxpayers' dollars? >> so i think you'll recall, supervisors, the last time we discussed this, the cases are what they are. what is important is that we make sure we do the best investigation that we can so that if there's criminal wrongdoing, we can bring that forward. in the previous system, we did not have confidence that we knew all of the facts and that we could analyze them appropriately to bring charges. you'll recall several of the cases we did not bring prei.i.b. we had to indicate to the public that we are uncertain of the facts, and that is never a good position to be in, at least to more doubt and scrutiny and skepticism. and now we can assure the public that we are doing quality investigation. and i know that people believe we want to put funding that results in prosecutions, but we have to follow the law.
if the facts do not measure up to the standard of the law, we cannot bring a case. >> supervisor cohen: i understand that and actually was very instrumental in helping to allocate the $3 million i didn't know to create this bureau with the hope that the infused amount of resources would bolster your department's ability to conduct very deep and thorough investigations that would bring charges. now here we are, this is about three years later, we don't have anything. so of course you can imagine, i'm rethinking, is this a good use of taxpayer dollars? so i'm faced with a decision and people are publicly scrutinizing the decisions that i'm making, particularly because i'm the budget chair, is this a good decision, particularly when you think about the need for housing, when you think about homelessness, how can i say through an argument that we need to continue to put $2
$2.7 million into this bureau when it hasn't yielded anything. and you've had enough time. you've had three years, and it just seems to be foolish to continue to pour money into this bureau that hasn't been successful in the last three years. >> i take issue with that, supervisor. it has been successful. as labels, the independent investigations bureau, and with your assistance, the way these were conducted before, the police department investigated themselves, so if we want to cut out the middleman where the department investigates itself. >> supervisor cohen: how do we make the connection? three years ago we had the citizens complaint, and now we have the department of police accountability that has the ability to audit and also do investigative work. >> not criminal. >> that is true, not criminal, but to be fair, you haven't
been successful on the criminal side. so i suspect that we should probably take the money and apply it to d.p.a. perhaps they can do a little bit more with the investment? >> i think if you're only interested in pursuing personnel actions, you can do that. i think if you want criminal actions brought against officers, they cannot do that. >> supervisor cohen: and i think the district attorney puts up as a defense their state laws that prohibit or restrict his ability to bring charges against officers that will actually stick. so until the california law changes it seems we should be also no longer funding this bureau because the law hasn't changed and who knows when it will change? maybe we should be allocating money someplace else? >> if you're not concerned about the quality of the investigations. >> supervisor cohen: what good is having a good investigation if it doesn't yield you any desired out comes? and let's be clear, the desired
outcomes would be convictions. >> i think the desired outcome would be finding the truth and pursuing the truth. i think -- >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's where we definitely differ. colleagues, any other questions? if not, i make a motion to completely defund the i.i.b. i don't know if there's any other budget cuts that you guys want to discuss. nope? all right. so to the b.l.a. >> madam chair, we have presented our recommended reductions which the department concurs with, and we would be happy to respond to any questions. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i appreciate that. i don't think that this body has any other questions. i'm looking to supervisor stefani because she was a former prosecutor in a different life, and see if she has any thoughts before we deliberate. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, supervisor cohen. we do not have a unit like this
when i worked for contra costa county. i'm just wondering, and i want to make sure that there is an outlet and a mechanism to investigate these crimes -- not crimes, these alleged crimes so i know with the office of police accountability, it's only personnel. i would imagine that even without i.i.b. if there was a crime thought to be committed, action could be taken without i.i.b. >> so yes, if we go back to the system we had before -- i can put up a chart for you. we can go back to the system where it takes us six and 700 days to complete an investigation and make a charging decision. that is the challenge of doing the work when we ask the managing attorney of the gang unit or of any other unit, homicide unit, to take time away from the trials and preparation that they have as
their full-time responsibility to try and add this very important work in on the side. so it is a matter -- it was a big complaint of the civil grand jury report was the timeliness of our work, and we've made dramatic improvements in that. >> supervisor stefani: i just worry -- actually, i have nothing more to say on this. >> supervisor cohen: well, we don't have to make a decision on that today. if you like, we can wait until monday. okay. thank you. we'll see you monday. so mr. rosenfeld, if i'm not mistaken, we need to make some action on just the basis of the b.l.a.'s recommendation. all right. i'll make that motion. supervisor sheehy's seconding it, and without objection.
okay. h.s.h., jeff kositsky. all right. so jeff, welcome back to the chambers. nice to see you, and your department is in agreement with the budget legislative analyst's recommendation. >> that is correct. >> supervisor cohen: and wanted to just bring you back to see if there's any -- anything last-minute that you wanted to discuss. i think my colleagues have a couple questions, as well for you. >> we have nothing to discuss. >> supervisor cohen: nothing to discuss. okay. let me look to the b.l.a. mr. b.l.a.? >> yes. supervisors, we put out a revised just to correct one number. so our recommended reductions, of the 425,349 in recommended
reductions, 619896 are ongoing, and 364,180 are one time. in addition, we recommend closing out prior unextended encumbrances of $375,000, and we recommend putting 390,225 on budget and finance reserve. the total savings would be 1.1 million, and in year two, 19-20, we recommend reductions totaling $291,697. of these recommended reductions, 61,869 are ongoing savings and 229,828 are one time savings, and we are under the impression that the department concurs with our recommendations. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much, and the
department does concur. and i want to recognize my colleagues, supervisor fewer, who has a few remarks. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chair cohen. so i think that there was a rebalancing plan that was actually in the works because prop b did not pass for some of the things that we were going to fund. and so i wanted to know, what is the plan for the $270 million in state funds that we're receiving because we're not able to fund the pain management center, the family shelter. it's my thoughts that the $27 million that we're going to be receiving in state funds that would go to fund these things. >> i'll defer to the mayor's office to answer that question. >> supervisor cohen: oh, thank you. kelly kirk patrick. >> thank you. i know the department is anxiously awaiting the rebalancing plan. we have been working closely
with the department and we will be planning to come out with that monday morning, and i apologize. i know it's important but we've been working really hard. and i know that ensuring the continuation of the 18-19 funding that is in the h.s.h. budget as well as the programs that you stated, i understand those are priorities for the committee. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you for definitely setting the record straight. we will continue the conversation on monday. i just, colleagues, want you to recognize that the director will be with us for a short period of time, but if the hearing goes along, which i anticipate it to be, then he has designated representatives to speak on his behalf. so we thank you for your time coming here, i want to make a motion that we expect the baseline cuts, and can i have a second by supervisor yee, and we'll take that without objection. thank you, director. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: okay. moving on, city planning.
yes. this is our last department that we will be hearing from today. this is the city planning department, and we actually have not -- we're going to be hearing an item that has not been heard yet at the planning commission, is that right? >> no, that was continued yesterday. the item was continued yesterday. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you for the clarification. you may continue. >> thank you. hopefully we're last, but not least. we are in agreement on everything except two items as i understand it today with the b.l.a. thanks for all your work today. we have an item that has to do with the purchase of a new vehicle. we have a vehicle that was used by enforcement staff that is 16 years old that is constantly breaking down. we believe the vehicle is beyond its useful life. it is shared by enforcement staff, and we have staff in the field that have been stranded because this car is so -- is a
mess. we are also -- we are also under an old lease program where we're paying about $2,000 a year for this car, so we would like to get a new electric vehicle, that just makes more sense. the second item is a policy item that's been identified by the b.l.a. to create a new 1842 position. this is a little bit unusual. this position was actually t.x.'ed in the city administrator's office. we are taking this position along the two others from the city administrator's office as the office of short-term rental which is the office that does all the enforcement on short-term rental, airbnb and so on. this item was t.x.'ed last year. there's an 8% difference in the salary. if it please the committee, we could certainly absorb the
revenue -- or i should say the cost increase in our budget, but it is -- there is an incumbent in this position, and i'd like to maintain that position, if i can. i'm -- that concludes my presentation. thank you. [inaudible] >> madam chair, members of the committee, first of all, our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total 356,148 in 18-19. they are all ongoing savings, and in 19-20, we have no recommended reductions for the budget. the two -- as i understand it, departments are in concurrence except for the two items which the director just referenced. one of them is a -- on page 143 of our report, we recommend that he deny a new replacement enforcement vehicle. the current vehicle to be
replaced is a prius from 2002, however the vehicle mileage is less than eight miles perworkday. we believe that is not necessary to replace. on page 144, as i understand what the director just said, he said he could absorb this, so that would mean that he is concurring with our recommendation -- well, you're concurring with the dollar amount of the savings. >> that's correct. >> as opposed to the actual substitution. in this case, just for clarification, supervisors, this is another case of an upward substitution. in this case, it's a 26% increase. this was done prior to obtaining board of supervisors approval. the other thing i would mention is that -- oh, this was done, as the director stated,
actually, by the city administrator prior to rh reasigning his position, but i'm happy to hear the department is saying they would accept the savings, so i would withdraw the recommendation as written and just implement the savings of specifically $31,170. >> if i may, i believe that difference is about 8%, the difference. >> actually, in the budget presentation, this position -- this position would be going from 90,516 to 114,618. that calculates exactly to a 26.6% increase. >> okay. thank you for that clarificati clarification. >> supervisor cohen: so this is the management assistant salary that we're talking about, and you're accepting that position but you're accepting it as a savings.
okay. yes, sam? >> yeah. i think the savings would be realized in atrition. >> supervisor cohen: realized in atrition. >> that's correct. >> supervisor cohen: and the position's been filled since november of 2017? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: when is it officially yours? >> with the approval of the budget, it would transfer over to us. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> then the last -- the only item in dispute is the car, which has only been averaging eight miles perworkday. >> supervisor cohen: yeah. you're going to have to defend that one, that request. >> the problem is this car is 16 years old. it is constantly breaking down. we have been paying $2,000 a year lease. we've basically paid for it twice over already, and we would like to purchase an electric vehicle so that -- something that's far more reliable. this car keeps breaking down, and it has repeatedly. it's 16 years old. >> supervisor cohen: all
right. thank you. >> madam chair, what we're saying here is this car is not needed at all. i agree, the maintenance should not be expended. this car should just be deleted is what we're saying. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: i wouldn't agree with that. if we can start getting employees out of cars, and using mass transit, but eight miles a day, seriously? >> supervisor cohen: hold on. the reason why it's eight miles a day is it's an old car and it's breaking down. >> and the reason -- >> supervisor cohen: director, director, i'm sorry. i want supervisor sheehy to finish his thought. >> supervisor sheehy: i just thought it would be great if the b.l.a. could look at car usage overall and look at the size of our fleet. who knows. maybe they'll put everybody on scooters. but honestly, the cars, that's -- now, it's just --
there are a lot of city cars. >> supervisor cohen: maybe we do need city scooters. >> supervisor sheehy: we do need -- i mean, we put so many encumbrances on people being able to drive in this city with the goal of everybody using transit, but we do not follow that practice in my experience as a city. so if we can eliminate one car, i think we'll make progress. >> if i may, i just -- this car is used by the enforcement staff to go from our office which is kind of central to the city to locations all over the city. with all respect to m.t.a., and i think my staff probably uses more transit than any agencies in the city, we can't use mass transit to get to various places in the city without taking hours. >> supervisor sheehy: well,
that's poor planning. i think you'll be more sensitive to when you do planning to how people get around. >> supervisor cohen: we'll save that for another day. your staff is not laughing. in all seriousness, let's focus back on the budget. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: my question was, director, how many vehicles do you have in your fleet? >> three. >> supervisor fewer: and this is one of the three. >> that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: have you identified another car? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: and have you costed it out? >> yes. the new car is a chevy volt. >> 37,578 is the request. >> and it's not general fund dolla dollars. >> supervisor cohen: it's not general fund dollars, it's project dollars that the department gives to the -- that
the -- >> oh, sorry, it's not fee dollars, it's not general fund dollars, it's enforcement dollars. they're fines and other revenue we get from enforcement cases. >> supervisor cohen: okay. all right. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yeah, i just want to say that i think in another time, yes, people are on roller skates, but i just think the enforcement piece is so important in our city, and this is a city -- i mean, i have to agree actually with the b.l.a., that i think it is an expensive vehicle, 37,000, but then, i bought my car for 6,000. and is this the best price of the vehicle that you could get for an electric car because i think there are electric cars that are less expensive. >> this is the least expensive vehicle that's available to the city for a city purchase. >> supervisor fewer: okay.
thank you. >> supervisor cohen: this is a leased vehicle, by the way? >> the current vehicle is leased. >> supervisor cohen: and when does the lease run out? >> it continues indefinitely. we've paid $2,000 a year for this car for 16 years. >> supervisor cohen: the leased vehicle. >> it's under the old lease program which as i understand, doesn't exist anymore. >> supervisor cohen: that's correct. so this car that you're proposed, 37,500, is that also a lease? >> no, we would purchase it. >> you would purchase it outright? okay. i'm comfortable with the purchase of this car. i don't know if anyone else is. >> supervisor fewer: yeah, i am. >> supervisor cohen: now, one thing i want to go back to is the upwards substitution. i'm definitely uncomfortable with that.
this is your second point of -- >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: contention, right? so you're interested in keeping it at the higher classification? >> it was t.x.'ed into that classification by the city administrator's office. we would like to keep it at that clarification because there's an incumbent in that position. primarily, that's the primary reason, and we believe that the work in the short-term rental office has evolved into something -- that it is the technical level of work that's needed. we believe it's an appropriate classification for the work. >> so let me ask you, that upwards substitution, is it within 15% -- let me put it to the b.l.a. >> 26.6%. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so one of the things we learned yesterday, when you do an upper classification, it's not really that big a deal when you do it within 15% of the base salary. this in this particular case is 26%. yesterday, we heard one that was 44%.
we didn't make a decision on that one, so what i think that we should do is probably -- let's see...i'm thinking we might want to split this one: give the okay, the purchase of a car for 37,500 and maybe reconsider what we're going to do -- what our policy perspective is going to be from the upwards classification from one classification to the other. >> if i may, if it makes sense, i would rather split it the other way, because i have an incumbent who's doing work at that level. >> okay. so willing to forego the purchase of a car to allow the you be awards substitution of an 1843 to 1842. >> the other way around.
>> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: just so i'm clear, you're saying you would absorb the salary so there's no increase? >> yes. >> supervisor stefani: that's what we did yesterday with the parks and recreation budget. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: in every instance that we talked about, i'm aware of the incumbent. they've all been doing spectacular work, so i'm wondering if the root of the problem may be in that department or that agency where there seems to be a lot of flexibility and fluidity on how people are hired, at what point, and -- 'cause i -- i really feel very uncomfortable about taking people who have been doing work and doing it well and kind of pen jammizing them over what seems like a current pattern of very, very bad process. directly was disrespectful of our board action as you noted
yesterday. in one of the cases, we were very specific, but i wonder if there's a larger, more systemic problem in how these things are happening. because i think there's a principle here that seems to be routinely violated, but it's really hard to go back and look at folks -- again, i've had direct experience with the three positions we've been talking about over the last few days. we've got great people doing great work, and then suddenly start messing around with their job feels very strange to me. but we have identified three instances that really, to my mind, present a pattern. >> supervisor cohen: yes, supervisor, you're very observant. we can talk about that maybe -- well, you want me -- that's what i was thinking. i was thinking we could talk about it at a later date. we'll talk about it at another time, but i believe there's a
motion right now that supervisor stefani would like to make. >> supervisor stefani: okay. so we're -- i'm making a motion to accept the agreements and the upper classification which will be absorbed into the budget. and are we disapproving the car? >> supervisor cohen: what do you -- you want the -- okay. give him the car. >> supervisor stefani: okay. so scrap that motion. >> supervisor cohen: all right. so we're going to accept -- we're going to reject the b.l.a. cuts, and we are going to allow the department to purchase the $37,500 car, and we are going to allow the upwards substitution but use your salary atrition to pay for that difference, the upper substitution. are we all clear on that?