tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 24, 2018 6:00pm-7:01pm PDT
two years, which brings it up. is that your understanding in. >> that's my understanding, too. and with this -- this $1.4 million allocation over two years -- >> it will yield an additional 12 ambulances, so that would be 27 -- we've already identified 23 that need to be retired. >> supervisor cohen: right. so you've kind of touched on the point. 15 plus 12 is 27, and originally, before we went on the break, you were asking for 23. now it looks like you maybe -- you were going to -- you're proposing to now have amended your request to ask for 27. >> well, so in this moment, we've identified 23. we anticipate next year over the year, if we're putting another 70,000 miles on a rig that has 165,000, there's going to be at least four. we'll probably have another ten or so that will be recommended for retirement. again, we're just trying to be proactive. >> supervisor cohen: i understand.
the b.l.a. suggested cutting your budget $700,000 so that's over the course of two years, so that's a total of $1.4 million, and then i think in your presentation you've amended that to reduce to instead of 700,000 to 585,000. >> 585 for 18-19, and then that would give you four a year, and wait for the pilot to end and make a decision in 19-20 once the pilot ends and it's known what they're going to do. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor fewer, did you have questions? [inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: okay. so hold on. i've got to get my calculator out. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: so right now, the allocations are what's in the budget -- mayor's budget for -- the allocation for 2018-19 is 700, and 19-20 is
700? >> yes. >> supervisor yee: and we've been going at four a year. so here's my suggestion -- well, here's one alternative. >> sure. >> supervisor yee: that -- >> supervisor, when you say we've been going at four a year, we're endeavoring as we move forward to come up with a regularly -- regular replacement plan which we just started on a couple of years ago. like i said, it's been so erratic, in 2014, we funded 14 new ambulances. it would be either four of the big box ambulances or six sprinters, and i've heard clearly that would be the desired model. >> supervisor yee: and this argues -- that point, actually is a good argument maybe for what i'm suggesting, because you do four every year, you commit to it, and it's been a
regular cycle. then, you'll surpass 23, and you'll start replacing the old ones on a regular basis. so my suggestion is that the -- take the b.l.a. suggestion for 18-19 and cut it by 580 -- >> supervisor cohen: 85, 585. >> supervisor yee: okay. and for 2020, to have enough funding there for four more, which would mean around 460, somewhere around there. and then, there would be a reduction about 240, somewhere along those lines. so you're basically going to commit to four every year, and then, hopefully, in the years going out, keep on doing four. you'll surpass 23, you'll get into 27, and 31, and so forth. it's almost better than trying
to buy everything at once because we're going to come into the same issue a few years down the line. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor. i actually like that proposal. i think it's an elegant solution. i do have a question. what is the life span of these sprinters, so if we make a purchase in 2018 or 2019, how long will we have them? how long are they useful for? is there an estimation? >> these would be a new apparatus for us, but 19 of the new big box ambulances already have 70,000 miles in a four-year period of time. >> supervisor cohen: right. i guess my question was when were the big box built? >> we purchased them in 2014. >> supervisor cohen: so when you purchase them in 2014, does that mean they were made in 2013? >> typically. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so 2013, it's old. i get it. what is the life span -- most cars, maybe they're 20 years they're on the road.
what is the life span of the big box, and what is the life span of the sprinter. >> so i would say most cars are probably not on the road for 20 years. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> but i would say -- like i said, these are hard miles. for an engine company, usually, it's a ten-year for the guidelines, and a truck company, between 12 and 15. for an ambulance, the way we run them, i'd say about three -- i'd say at least five years, five to six years. >> supervisor cohen: and you say hard miles as if there was a distinction. these are city miles as opposed to freeway miles. >> city miles are a lot harder. i will just mention code three driving, lots of quick starts and stops. the engine -- it's not like someone that commutes to work on a typical day where you start the engine, arrive at your workplace, and then it's dormant for eight hours. they're constantly moving lots of different people in and out of them.
the seats get moved back and forth for the comfort and the safety of the employees, depending on their stature and size. >> supervisor cohen: no, i understand where you're getting. you and i are going in the same direction. >> okay. >> supervisor cohen: okay. there any other discussion? we've got a great solution that i'm prepared to support that supervisor yee has proposed, keeping in mind -- so chief, it sounds like we are not going to support the allocation for $700,000, okay? instead, in fiscal year 19-20, we're going to support the recommendation of 585, which means it's actually $115,000 savings that goes back to you and that's at least one unit cost of one vehicle, given that the unit cost is 112,500 a year. and then, in fisk the year 19-20, i heard supervisor yee
said inat the scene of reducing 700,000, we'll reduce 2 -- in -- in fiscal year 19-20, i heard supervisor yee say we'll reduce 240, so that still allows you the four a year in 19-20. >> i'm not 100% following you. >> supervisor cohen: sure. >> supervisor yee: can -- >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee. >> so i guess the easiest, the budget analyst's proposal is for a reduction of 700,000 in each of the years we're talking about. so i guess that 700,000, what are you proposing that it becomes in. >> supervisor cohen: well, we're proposing in year one, it would be 585. >> a reduction? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> that's significant. all i'm saying is -- totally respect the decisions you have to make, but i would love to reference this discussion when we might see some degradation
in our service, just purely offered with respect. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and received with respect. and then, in fiscal year '20, instead of a $700,000 reduction, we are proposing a $240,000 reduction. >> supervisor yee: correct. >> right. so instead of the 1.4 over the twoe two years, you're reducing it by half. >> supervisor yee: approximately. >> supervisor cohen: approximately. >> by more than have, 824 out of the 1.4, which is significant, obviously. >> supervisor cohen: okay. colleagues? >> supervisor yee: and i'd like to -- maybe next year, if you go through an exercise again -- i don't know how these -- the floor was determined to replace every year as a plan. if you come back next year and say here's the justification of a new plan, it needs more,
then, i'm very open to supporting that. but what i'm trying to do is support your current plan. >> supervisor cohen: and when he says current plan, he means the current plan to replace four units a approximate year, is that right, supervisor? -- a year, is that right, supervisor? >> supervisor yee: yes, and under your analysis, maybe you'll come back next year and say the rationale is six units every year. i just don't know. >> so when i'm being told that we need to replace 23 engines -- excuse me, ambulances, we'll be able to, with this amount, replace 17 of the 23, if i'm doing the math correctly in my head. >> supervisor yee: you can replace 20. >> supervisor cohen: 20 of them, because -- >> supervisor fewer: you would get 15 units with the 1.4 million that you already have, and 340 that they are
actually putting into your budget. >> totally agree on the 15. >> supervisor fewer: and then, another one, and that is why the 2018-2019 allocation is -- they're cutting 585 because that leaves 115 for a new one, an extra one, so that would be 16. and then, in 19-20, an additional four engines -- i mean, ambulances. >> right. so today, i'm being told i need to replace 23 ambulances. so what you're funding is the replacement, in my head, of 16 or 17, in my head, not 20. and next year, when i'm being told i'm going to need to replace even more. >> supervisor fewer: in 19-20, you're absolutely right, it would be an additional four which would get you to 20. but i think i concur with what supervisor yee says is that your pilot will be over, and we will have a new come back next year about the need next year,
and maybe it's a reconfiguration also. >> so the pilot concludes next week, to clarify. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: also, we can go around in circles in terms of the argument. we started allocations for the bigger -- your ambulance, in which you would have gotten eight if you would have kept to that plan and two or three or whatever. so when you look at the allocation that's in place, and the plan was possibly get those bigger or cheaper and bigger ambulances, you wouldn't have gotten to 23. it would have been less than 20. >> right, which is another positive aspect about moving forward for a whole host of reasons with the sprinter model. i'm just trying to make--make
it work for our employees that spend hours and hours in these ambulances and the public that we transport. it's an uncomfortable ride in these ambulances that have 165,000 miles. we're transporting our residents and our visitors, and it's -- it's -- it's a public safety issue, and again, in order to provide a quality service -- this is equipment. i'm not asking for more people. it's equipment. i think it's imperative, and again, i have been criticized for not arguing enough for our department. >> supervisor cohen: you're doing it a good job for this year. >> thank you. i'm trying to convey i mean what i say. i'm not someone who adds things. i'm not saying we need 50 because we're going to get 25. that's not my position. we need funding. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor stefani has some comments to say, and i do want to make a point for the members on this body. we are going through our
deliberation process, but it's not final. if you sleep on it, and you come back and on monday, we want to make some changes, we have the ability to do so. we'll be taking public comment on monday, and so there still will be some opportunity here. i'm not signaling to the department that you're going to be able to persuade anyone. i think for me, my mind is made up, but there seems to be some ambivalence on what's the best direction. so supervisor stefani, i want to recognize you. >> thank you, supervisor cohen, and here's my issue. the fact that this could be a public safety risk, that's what it sounds like you're saying to us, chief, that if we don't fund these -- maybe i'm reading too much into this. i don't feel comfortable voting in a way that might put anyone at risk, so i would just like you to explain that a little bit more. and also, wondering what the maintenance is on the vehicles that are old, whether or not there would be a cost savings
there. >> we anticipate that there may be a cost savings. we spent in the last fiscal year 1,025,967 in namaintenanc. i would guess that the bulk of that is for these 23 ambulances that we just go out and make it work. i don't want to state it's a major public safety risk. all i'm saying is we are a state of the art city, it's an iconic city. we need a fleet that rises up to the occasion. these ambulances, they take a beating. i don't know. would you want your loved one in a substandard ambulance? i'm really excited about the sprinter model, and i appreciate, particularly supervisor cohen, your remarks about it. it's moot -- sometimes in this department it's like moving the titanic forward. we've got it, it's value added.
we're not asking for new positions but it's something that i feel obviously very strongly about. next year when i come to you, those 23, there's going to be more because we're going to need -- we have high replacement costs because of our busy call volume. i just -- again, i know you have tough decisions to make, but i'm -- i'm advocating strongly for this, obviously, because we -- >> supervisor cohen: okay. chief. we got you. catherine? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chief. i just want to say it's an investment that i'm glad to make. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: no, i appreciate your arguments, and my point is if we had not pushed for the cheaper model -- it doesn't mean that it is a bad model, it's more efficient and everything else, and the budget would have supported 18 total. >> right. >> supervisor yee: 18 of the older model, and that's what
was on the budget. so if there were truly a need for 23, and the mayor's office supported it, and you made the argument, there should have been a budget for 23, and there was a budget for 18. and what i'm trying to do is say well, we want more than 18, and my suggestion will give you 20. >> over -- not immediately. over the two years. >> supervisor yee: right, but you wouldn't have gotten 23 immediately no matter what. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. kelly, we have a question for you. supervisor stefani has one for you. >> supervisor stefani: yes. if you could just expand on what supervisor yee just said in terms of why it wasn't in the mayor's budget. it sounds like that request was made. >> on 18-19, there's the 15
that everybody is on board with, right? and then, there's the 700,000 that is in the mayor's proposed budget which gets to six new vehicles. you know, we do have a limited equipment budget, and we try our best to allocate to the extent we can, and so we were able to fund 21 in the mayor's budget, and so i believe we support the fire department's need for these vehicle replacements and the critical needs they've identified. >> supervisor cohen: do you have a question? supervisor yee -- i'm sorry, just give me a second. b.l.a., is there anything else you need -- any other remarks, still? okay. supervisor yee, can you make a motion, please? >> supervisor yee: i'd like to make a motion -- actually, i don't even know what the motion is. >> supervisor cohen: i'll go ahead and make it, if you don't mind -- oh, ben? >> if you don't mind because we'll be the ones putting into the system that supervisor yee
has suggested, in lieu of the 700,000 and 700,000 cut, that it would be a 585 reduction in year one, and 285 reduction in year two. >> supervisor yee: right. that's my motion. >> supervisor cohen: all right. that's the motion, and would you like to take a roll call, catherine stefani. >> clerk: yes. is there a second on the motion? >> supervisor cohen: i'll second the motion. [roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes and two noes with supervisors sheehy and stefani in the dissent. >> thank you, supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for your valiant effort. okay. next we're going to hear from naomi kelley and the city administrator's office or her representative. all right.
welcome. >> okay. i think this might be another long one. >> i hope not. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. >> good afternoon, supervisors. adam nguyen with financing for the city administrator's office. naomi kelley apologizes for not being able to attend this afternoon. >> supervisor cohen: please continue. >> i can go ahead and start. in response to the budget analyst's recommendations, we accept all of the recommended general fund reductions for fiscal year 18-19, totaling $192,336, of which 146,654 with one time, and we accept that fiscal year 19-20 recommended ongoing reductions of $45,996. the disagreements that we have are purely on nongeneral fund
items, and also their policy and reserve recommendations. >> supervisor cohen: just for quick reference, when you say nongeneral fund, that means that it's nongeneral fund items, that means it does not draw from the gent fund. >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: and so where does that drawdown happen? >> so those are from self-supporting funds. those would include departments such as real estate, or in this case, a position through risk management. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i think that's an important point to note. mr. b.l.a.? >> clarify committee, which the committee knows, when you review the airport budget, which you did recently, and the p.u.c. budget, the hetch hetchy budget, those are all nongeneral fund moneys. >> supervisor cohen: right. >> so when we analyze the budget, we don't -- although we point out what is general fund and nongeneral fund in terms of our analysis, it's still tax payers' funds, so when we make a recommendation, we don't
distinguish in that context whether it's general fund or nongeneral fund. we make a recommendation to you to determine is the request justified or isn't it justified, irrespective of the source of funds, and that's why you just got through doing a very detailed review on the 5ir7 airport, the port's, and so forth's budget, so it's the exact same context here, nongeneral fund, but it's still whether or not you believe it's justified. that's the bottom line. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you may continue. >> thank you. so to walk-through the two different nongeneral fund recommendations that they have recommended, the first one is denying the interim exception for an 0933 manager 5, and this is going to be the permit center manager for a new facility that is coming on-line in the next few years. they are also recommending a downward substitution, and we
asking that you reject this recommendation. the position is necessary at that level in order to facilitate change to permitting processes, and this is across the major permitting departments, including the department of building inspection, planning, fire, public health, and others. these are complex processes, and what we're trying to do is make them better for new business owners that are setting up new businesses. also residents that are making changes to homes, to make the permit process more stream lined, make it more user friendly, and also to change the physical infrastructure so when they go to this new facility at 49 south vanness they'll have a one stop shopping center for permitting where they can go in and talk to each of the respective departments that is easier to navigate. whereas now, people have to go and figure out the byzantine
process themselves, going to each department and trying to walk-through all of the different contingent permits for each of these processes. so we ask that you keep this at an 0933 level which is necessary to negotiate with the departmentive heads with those respective departments to facilitate the changes to this permitting process. >> madam chair? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> so typically, a manager -- in this particular case, this manager 5 is going to supervise three positions. typically, in the city, a manager 5 manages a large -- much larger organization than just supervising three positions. that was the basis of our recommendation to make it a lower level -- we're not -- we're not saying they don't need the position, we're just saying it should not be a manager 5 position. [please stand by for captioner switch]
>> so this person will be managing permits? >> no, this person will be managing the physical center. so how all those departments within that center. the process, we are going to be having -- we are going to have different information kiosks, we are bringing in ttx and doing more streamlined payment systems so all the individual departments aren't maintaining cash and doing separate payments. the scheduling around counters, more importantly though they will be looking at the permitting process itself. so if we had this position in place already some of the recent work that others have been recommending around streamlining affordable housing permits, this person would help lead this discussion. >> permits for all kinds of
permits, not just -- yeah, with the controller's office they have been doing service inventory as part of this. they have identified over 300 permits. >> did you consider a classification? >> we have looked at the classification. they recommended the position at a 0941 level and we actually brought it down one step to a 0933 when we proposed it in the budget. it might get to that level as the position continues to expand its responsibilities but we weren't ready to start at that point. >> so the manage 5 position is a 0933? >> yes. >> who made the initial recommendation taking it one step above this 0933? >> that was the initial discussion with the controller's office in their review of other programs around the country and what level that that was needed based on the job description. >> let's take a pause. so i'm going to go to your, mr. rosenfield.
help me. they are throwing you under the bus, buddy, saying that you suggested all of this. now you got to defend it. see how these people are? what do you think? >> we had a project working with the city administrator on the redesign of permit processes that are part of the promise of moving into this new building. our office did a review and reviewed kind of comparable permit centers in new york, san jose and some other places. they have you organize these big interdepartmental bodies of work. based on that we had a number of suggestions for ken and naomi. >> give me the list of suggestions. what was on that list? >> a whole host of things, how the committee works. we are doing inventories of all the permit processes coming into this new center and one of the things we suggested was that we needed to have a project manager, a manager that -- >> a high level senior person? >> i think it's likely to be a
high level person because you are talking about someone that's sitting over functions that sit in three or more different departments so someone that while the direct team is going to be comparatively smaller they are going to have dotted line relationships and requirements to be able to kind of at times push permitting departments around to help them change their processes to get to something more efficient. >> i see. >> i think that was the base of our recommendation. >> so you made a recommendation to have -- i don't know. what is above a manager 5 position? what's above a 0933? >> i think the 0941 is the position that ken is referencing, one notch above this. one was our initial thinking on this. i think that 0933 is a reasonable landing point. >> what is a notch below 0933? >> the 0932 and 0931. >> thank you. so what is the difference between an 0932 and an 0933 in
terms of experience, in terms of qualifications? >> i don't know if i can talk to that. each will have a slight salary increment between classes so it's trying to find the right salary scale to reach the skills and candidates that -- and qualifications of those that you need to attract for the work. >> the pointed issue is that the -- we are -- the bla is in disagreement with the department. i believe that it's misclassified and it should be classified possibly as 0932. my question is, i'd love to be able to see what exactly the
differences are in the duties. i mean, a dhr, mickey callahan is here. >> the subject matter expert of human resources is here and they are the ones that reviewed the job description and agreed with the 0933 classification. >> hi, mickey. maybe you can come on up. >> [inaudible] >> good afternoon, madame chair. >> thank you for being here timely. so i understand that you approved the 0933 classification for a new manager five position. i don't know if you were following the conversation. >> yes, i was. particularly when i heard my name. >> okay. well, we said your name. there was tons of stuff before we said your name. the gentleman who just spoke before you said that you approved this classification and the bla is suggesting that it's misclassified, it should be a lesser position due to the number that you're only managing three ftes. does this ring a bell? >> well, i personally did not approve it but i'll talk about
how -- what are the standards we use to approve these. >> okay. >> with all due respect to mr. rosenfield, it's not really so much about salary, it's a duties test. function duties, minimal qualifications. we have allocation factors that we keep closely held because we don't want departments to try to adjust the job to fit the salary that they want. so we really wanted to look at what is the job required, what is the consequences, the scope of what they manage, is it a city-wide function, just one department, is there a large financial group? it's not simply number of people. so we have the allocation factors which i could share with you. i don't have them memorized but generally as indicated it's an increasing level as you go higher up and 0932 i would say is a mid level -- mid to high level manager 33.
they are not the highest group, which is the 094, 41, 42. i can see if there's anything to add about the factors, the managing deputy director. >> department of human resources. our team actually goes through pretty comprehensive review of the requests that come in from the department and primarily what we do as directed -- stated by director callahan is we look at a number after allocation factors, one is how large the span of supervision for the individual would be. we just really take into consideration using a matrix, what is the conference of error of the particular position, what is the position in terms of experiment, does it have city-wide impact, just one department. so a department would submit to us a comprehensive request that our staff looks at individually and in the context of all of the
man -- managers to make an appropriate allocation. in this case our team looked at the request which unfortunately i don't have in front of me, made the recommendation that the position should be allocated to the level that it's identified. >> okay. thank you. i appreciate that. does the bla have anything? nothing. okay. you may continue with your presentation. >> all right. the next non-general fund item has to do with a position, an 1822 risk management administrative analyst. this position is necessary for our department because it will be working on a mandated chapter 14b local business enterprise program. this is for the prompt payment low cost loan program. what that is going to be designed to do is help facilitate low cost loans to small business enterprises often related to construction.
these are usually minority-owned, minority-staffed firms that do the first stages of work in construction. they usually do demolition. so they will be the first ones on the job. they are subcontracting through a prime but the problem is that the bripriep prime -- primes is the invoices. they don't pay for months. they are small businesses and they don't have money and have to float this for long periods of time. this jeopardizes their business and places strains on them. we are asking to create this program, this staff person will help facilitate the loan program and the process and help to ensure that these businesses are paid promptly. >> i understand this is a priority within the department but i don't understand if it's a priority why it's been vacant for five years? >> so when the legislation was passed and as we've made changes we had to work with the city attorney's office and also the risk management division along with the contract monitoring
division to help craft this policy. we have recently achieved the kind of agreement with the city attorney's office on how to move forward to do so and the position has been submitted for us to fill. as soon as the position is up and ready it's there. >> so it took five years to figure out how to do what? >> it took us time to work through the legal complexities. we are unable to make advanced payments to entities. you can't pay money before they provide work. we have to work with the city attorney's office to devise a program that would meet legal requirements with a charter. >> usually when things are a priority there's some kind of an expedited process. i'm just a little bit leery on that -- on the fact that it's been vacant for five years and yet it's a priority. the second part i'm uncomfortable about is you've got a $4.4 million salary
savings of last year and on this year alone you're on track to bring in over $3 million. >> the salary savings part of this discussion is kind of a red hearing. this is a nongeneral fund. the salary refers to general fund and other wise. the bulk of those salary savings are basically through work order departments where we don't actually facilitate the work and hire the positions we don't recover the funds. >> you can understand that. to you it may seem like a red hearing but to me this is still taxpayer dollars and we should be taking it very seriously. so explain to me what you've been doing with the $4.4 million. it's just been sitting there. >> so when it comes to this expenditure authority if we do not fill the positions then we don't recover against them. we don't charge other departments for those services. those ended up being savings for those departments. >> and thank you for explaining
that. so, again, you are on track to recover about $3 million this year and -- you know what, i'll just stop there and let supervisor fewer. >> so this position is a 14b loan sort of person managing it, this program, is that what it is? >> correct. >> okay. and actually i just want to say to my colleagues that having worked on this now -- >> what? >> having worked on this subject 14b with many small contractors i think this is a really important. they can't compete with the large people because they have to buy supplies and they can't bid on jobs because they don't have the capital to actually buy the materials they need to actually work the next job. so the invoices are always late.
i think this is a way to keep especially our small businesses that are people of color in business here in san francisco. thanks. >> seeing there are no other questions for colleagues we'll hear from the bla. >> i have nothing to add, madame chair. you explained the situation better than we did. the position has been -- we are not saying that it's not a necessary function but if it's such a priority how could -- the department said it's taken them since 2013 to get their act together for this important position. that's why we've recommended it be deleted. >> i'm going to give you another chance to argue that point because i was not convinced by your answer. i don't know if you want to -- if there's another staff person that can do that. >> i don't think that we have anyone available currently. >> maybe describe the legal
complexities that you were describing. you said that there were legal complexities that took us five years to get to where we are today. >> it's what i stated in the past. basically we cannot make payments to parties until services are rendered and in this case it allows us to create a loan program which in and of itself is often complex for the city to provide loans and then to basically facilitate these payments to these contractors. >> i don't know if you answered my question. you're telling me that it's a priority. i'm asking how can something that is a priority take five years to solve? you're saying about costs that -- with -- the fees that are not recovered because services are never rendered. so i don't know -- i don't see this as a priority.
you know, the budget legislative analyst has made a recommendation to delete this 1822 administrative analyst position and you're here saying don't delete it, as a matter of fact we store -- restore it, it's not a general fund issue, this is really important to us and i'm saying, okay, it's really important to you but, why, how. you say, well, the small minority contractors that take a long time to get their revenue so what happened to the small businesses in the last five years? that element of -- that element -- they are still contracting, they are still working. many of them are in the bay view. i know them. i have an idea of this business. my question is again is how is this a priority? we have businesses that are existing, still somehow manage to stay afloat. >> the city administrator's office has a broad wide range of responsibilities. it's taken us time to create
this program but it's one that we think is important moving forward. >> okay. supervisor yee. >> the reason why we are talking about this new staff member is to administer this loan program? >> correct. >> and the loan program did not exist until when? >> it currently does not exist. it's one that needs to be set up. >> and the purpose of this staff person is to set it up? >> to help facilitate and finalize the loan program and administer it. >> in the mic sir. in the mic. >> that was the purpose supervisor yee back in 2013 and we are still where we are. that money has just been sitting there. you have allocated it to your prioriti priorities. if it was approved in 2013 that money would have added to your pot. >> a quick correction to that. it actually is non-general fund. it's related to the security bond self-insurance fund. these
are funds that have been allocated from enterprise departments including the public utilities commission, dpw and then airports -- ports. sorry. those are the three departments. >> and the committee -- >> hold on. let him finish. >> those funds come to us in regular transfers in the amount of $30,000 per transfer from those departments for a total of $150,000 per year and that helps to fund the cost of the position but helps to build the self-insurance fund which we've been trying to increase the size of over the years that helps us provide additional protections to small firms so they can have assurances to reduce their cost of entering into a contract so we can have more small businesses developed. so there's a multipurpose to this. one was to help insure that the bond self-insurance fund was accruing. the other part was to fund a portion of the position. we wanted to take some time to contribute towards the self-insurance fund and the other part now since it's been
built up is going to help to fund the position for on going operations related to this loan program. >> okay. colleagues, any other questions? i want to talk a little bit about placing $7.9 million on reserve and this is for the relocation of staff for the hall of justice. i understand that you guys are against this recommendation and i'd love to hear your reasons why. >> correct. the high level description is basically the leases and the work associated with the hall of justice. it's been reviewed multiple times in different instances by the board for different properties. these are for 945branon -- i'm sorry, 945 bryant, 777 branon and 350 rhode island. the work for the da's office at 350 rhode island has already commenced. what we need are the funds for these two allocations so it's $5.4 million rather than the $7.9 in the first year and those funds will be applied towards
the design, the tenant improvements and the actual moves for the various departments including adult probations, police along with the da's office. this would help to exit from the hall of justice which will then help us to demolish and rebuild that building. >> for what reason are you not interested in seeing these funds placed on budget reserve? i understand that there's just -- there's not a detailed spending plan. >> so we provide many pages of detailed planning for the budget analyst. what the funds are needed for are essentially to facilitate the work now. we have some of the leases that are becomiing active as of july 1st. by having these funds available it will allow us to now do the design work for some of the other properties and then to actually fund the tenant improvements directly themselves. the lease budgets are actually already placed within our operating budget. this is the other side of the
one time cost. >> thank you. bla? >> my understanding is it's appropriations. when we did the lease review for the police evidence lease and the adult probation lease the tenant improvements for those leases were from prior year appropriatio appropriations. this is an additional appropriation for these purposes. i don't have the specific numbers but i believe that 1$15 million has been appropriated and these were additional moneys in the capital plan to continue that project. the reason we are recommending a reserve on these funds is that we have looked at these leases and as they have come forward the plans and the tenant improvements there's no detail behind it. they are very, very early planning stages. we were concerned as we looked at the adult probation lease that the estimate cost of the tenant improvements because we didn't have any way to know what was behind it. the same is true with the police evidence lease. those are prior year funds that
were appropriated for those purposes that were not put on reserve. this is a new appropriation on top of that. i believe the entire appropriation between the two sets is about $30 million. we think it's really significant that the board have an ability to look at those funds and see how they are being spent. i want to make it really clear that the budget and finance committee reserve is a one step process. it doesn't even go to the full board. so all they have to do is come forward, give details on how the moneys are being spent, submit it to us for review, have a hearing before the budget and finance committee and then have the moneys released. >> thank you for highlighting that. one question for the bla. i wanted to know if you took into consideration -- if i'm not misunderstanding the city administrator's office is what they are saying about when it comes to leases, did you take into consideration that we could possibly -- if placing money on budget reserve would slow down the process, that means that we
would be in a lease and that a building will be sitting empty because it would not be allocated. hold on. we have to get your mic on. >> i don't like this mic. the moneys are appropriated. they are available. all they have to do is come and be released. there's the leasing and then there is the tenant -- the tenant improvement cost. the board still has to approve the lease. so it's kind of irrelevant if the lease has not come to the board for approval. >> thank you very much. i want to give the city administrator a chance to respond. >> the leases were approved in may. >> i have a question. >> on may 17th at budget and finance. >> all right. hold on. >> maybe i need some clarification. we've been talking about the police evidence lease and the adult probation, correct? >> ask our deputy director for
capital planning to help address. >> please come forward. >> the lease is for 777 branon which is the police storage and the lease for 945 bryant both came to budget and finance on may 17th. >> okay. >> correct. at that time we expressed concern about not having a budget for the tenant improvements. also my understanding was they were prior year propositions for those. >> right. what was said for those at that time was any questions about those improvements could be addressed during the budget process, which is what we are here doing. so i'm happy to answer any questions that you have about any of the plans before us. >> yes. >> so the -- to the question about what things were based on, i'm happy to answer any of those. >> mr. rose? >> put it this way, there's a $5.4 million for furnishing, fixtures and equipment. if you do not accept our recommendation for reserve you're giving the department authority to spend those funds with no budget review.
now the department just said they will be happy to discuss it with you now. they don't want us to look at the details. they don't want to submit a budget for details and then we report to you. if you go with the department, the department says, fine, we'll show you supervisor, we are going to spend it on this, this and this and it will be so much for this, so much for this. there's no need for a budget analysis report to tell you how $5.4 million is going to be expended. we believe the board of sup supervisors should review that $5.4 million in detail. >> on those leases do we start paying rent on those on july 1st? >> july 25th beginning the lease at 350 rhode island north. that's the da's property. the 777 branon lease begins in august 2018 before the board comes back from recess. then the bryant lease for adult probation and hopefully one
other office begins in november of 2018. so we have three leases coming up quickly and we want to get folks in as quickly as possible. >> maybe you could speak to the point that the bla just made, mr. rose in particular. >> can i just ask one follow up question? >> sure. i'm sorry. >> so the timing oh of -- of the hall of justice, if the funds were reserved would there be a delay in there? if we were paying rent on something that we are not in is my concern. >> understood. i don't believe that there would be a delay in moving. we do have -- if i can just clarify some of the numbers because some of the numbers that the bla mentioned at least to my ear didn't sound quite straight. so in fiscal '18 there was an $8 million appropriation to the justice facilities improvement program that -- through the capital budget that was approved. a little bit of spending has occurred there. then there is an additional $7.9
requested in fiscal '19 and then those are the funds that we need to execute all three leases. it's not so much an issue of timing because the moves are staggered and tenant improvements will take some time. we do need a hefty chunk up front just for the tenant improvement and furniture ordering. the da is ready to order furniture now. the fourth floor plan for them is set. there is a time factor there. i think that there's more of a concern about introducing reserves. so when we allocated the $8 million last year in fiscal '18 the purpose -- it was a programatic budget, it would take years and there were a lot of moving pieces that we know.
we are doing oust best estimates on the moves and setting up an office. just on the da's piece alone those efforts are proving helpful and on point. so where we were estimating all along a $9.1 million tenant improvement project at rhode island we are seeing that come in close to final now still going back and forth a little bit with the landlord but those are coming in around $9.6. we are not far off. all of which is to say the only thing that's new here is the reserve. there was always a plan to spend $16 million plus some ffne help if needed over the course of fiscal '19. any details about that move i'm happy to provide. there is absolutely nothing to hide. i'm happy to answer any questions. >> i just want to say one more thing. if you need these funds released during august we are not here so is that a problem if we are not here for a month? >> i mean, i'm always concerned
about that. that does make me nervous. we know that staff needs to get out of that building as quickly as possible just on tuesday there was another water leak above the head of one of our adult probation staff and we had to move her. the partial ceiling collapsed. any possibility of delay even by a few weeks is not something that we are looking for. >> thank you. so to me it sounds like you need to do some -- you need to figure out when you need to be out of the -- be out of the building and you want to be in the new one and do some planning. >> we have. yeah. >> so you can get the item on the calendar knowing that there will be four weeks in august that the board will not be in session. >> yeah. >> so it just sounds like just a little bit more planning and thoughtfulness needs to be -- >> it's just a level of detail requested. the first request for detail we had on the project was the bla request. we provided what we thought was more than comprehensive detail.
if it's not we can come back. >> if you think about it, that's kind of like the argument as to why it should be on budget reserve. until the bla made the request these numbers have not come to the budget and finance committee. >> yeah. >> so that's where i'm uncomfortable. i like putting things on budget review. i think it's fun because that's when you really get to know about what is going on, where these dollars are being spent. so when you're in walgreens or in safeway and someone is asking you why are you spending this much money you can see with authority this is what i heard in committee and being able to be accountable for every dollar on reserve. colleagues, any other discussions? no? nothing? okay. i want to see if the department -- the department, is there anything else that you guys want to share? any last minute closing arguments? >> for this particular item or other items? >> for this particular one. >> no other arguments on this one.
>> let's move forward then. >> just a few more. so the last one -- actually the last two, so one has to do with the policy recommendation denying the office of cannabis's proposed upward substitution of an 1840 junior manager assistant to a senior analyst. the position is currently filled as an 1823. we did sell in order to attract and retrain an incumbent that has the skills, experience and academic training in order to do the work that is required for them, in order to help set up the new office of cannabis. >> let's talk about that. why would you advertise something that you're not budgeted for? why would you advertise a job that you do want to attract a certain skill set but you don't have that in the budget? >> so we drew from temp salary and then the broad project budget allows us to fund the position. based on the start up of the office looking at the skills that were needed in order to engage communities in this case
we have a bilingual speaker and to do the complex legislative analysis and to work it through the permitting process so it's a broad range of activities. we've asked this person to basically go out and do safety inspections along with other departments. we'll have multiple departments at the same time going out and doing a broad range of complex higher level work. >> so i think what makes me uncomfortable is i was at the table when the legislation was introduced. i think we introduced it together on the creation and the allocation -- budget allocations for these positions. so it's really hard to sit here and you say, okay, we are going to give you this much for this position and then you guys -- i'll just not -- not you specifically but you meaning the department decided, well, this
is what we really need. it just feels like we were sold something and then what we actually ended up getting cost us more money. it's like when you go to negotiate a car. you go for your bmw and they have all these packages and safety things that they add on so your monthly cost is more than you wanted to go in and spend on. for what reason would you make an offer to a candidate that for a position that you didn't have the budget authority to really make? what you're asking for is for us to up -- what is it called? upgrade it. up zone it? a substitution. an upward substitution. it's like you said, hey, do this and you get who you think you want and then it's like actually just kidding, we really want this and here you are today. >> hi. administrative office again.
one of the things i want to clarify is that the position itself -- the original 1840 position, a management position was not created to substitute the position. i agree the department, when we came through the budget process we probably shouldn't have been as conservative as we were in thinking that we were going to be able to staff the office at the level of position put forward in the budget. >> that's one rational. the other rational is since we underestimated we have to stick with what we put out there, stick within the confines of the budget. that's another way you could have went. >> what we thought was more important is we had a number of legislative and priority policies in front of us in order to successfully put forward this program with a lot of different components and make sure it hit a very specific deadline. that's what we were committed to do. in order to do that we needed more than the specific -- we needed more than a management assistant. we needed an analyst position which then allowed us to help
develop the applications process, help go out in the community, help with bilingual representation, help with a variety of other more high end analytical work that originally when we were thinking of having a management assistant we thought we needed to help staff the office and do more paperwork. we didn't realize we really needed more staff who were doing higher level functions. so that's when we went back to dhr and said we are not going to fill the 1840, we really need this other position, we have the availability to create it through the process, dhr process, and that's what we need to move forward as quickly as possible in order to meet all of these policy deadlines. >> what happens when the person that has the job now moves on? do you oh -- downgrade the classification? say the person doesn't have the entire skill set because that's the position that the person occupying this position has and you can't duplicate that, how does that work