tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 25, 2018 9:00pm-10:00pm PDT
really the magic number in regards to having officers that can do these roles, then there's many ways to get there. and so when i factor in, what my daughters are, which is to make sure that we have adequate police force, balanced with how do we spend our money in the city, then my suggestion is pretty straight forward. that, you know, my colleagues here have looked at the report also and saw that there were 202. one supervisor suggested 100. and if you had not come up with a number of 68, with strong possibilities, i probably would have support add 100. but i'm also trusting that the 68 are honest observations that you could work with.
and then ask the question if it's not 68 and it's 15, what's the cost savings and b.l.a. said the cost savings for a full year would be about $6 million. so i'm going to suggest that part of the recommendations is that this is going to be an assumption but if it is assumed wrong, we have three more years to make up the wrong assumptions. it won't be -- my guess is it won't be off that much. if you're -- whether it's 68 or a 50. it could be 55, it could be 45. that we go ahead and reduce the budget for at least year two, say $6 million? >> b.l.a. turn the mic on. >> to clarify, what our number is, if you were to civilianize
50 of the 68 positions that the police department said could potentially be civilianized, the year one cost would be about -- a little bit more than $3 million based on six months higher date. the year two costs would be about $7.1, $7.2 million, that's for 50 positions. we want to be clear. i think there's been a little bit of discussion. that's 50 civilian positions replacing up to 100 police positions that are going through the academy. and i also wanted to be clear that the reason that we're saying that is that we believe that there are other staffing options that get more police out on the street. >> and i'm not arguing with that. i just wanted to -- i'm just taking one piece. >> if you are taking that piece, the second year savings is $6 million. >> ok. and $6 million that i'd like to reduce from the second year budget. and the first year, let me get back to the first year. because it's a little unclear
how long it would take and so forth. if it is half a year, would be about $3 million? >> if it were half a year, the savings would be about $950,000 because also the budgeting for the police positions in the first year are only six-months positions. so the savings would be less because there's less in the budgets to save from. >> ok. i'm willing to suggest that we reduce that by half a million for year one. and i'm being real conservative. what i heard you suggest is to put the $14 million in reserve. i would suggest that we at least cut $6 million and not put $14 million in reserves. >> you are suggesting -- so i'm clear. >> yeah. >> ok.
never mind. continue. >> want me to restate it? >> supervisor yee, i think that the budget analysts -- you want to take $6 million in 2018 and really i think that what the b.l.a. said is that the real cost savings of about $7 million. is that correct? in year two. >> yes. if near two, if you budget for 50 civilian positions and no police positions, then the cost would be a little less than $7.2 million. the savings would be about $6.1 million. >> oh, saving $6.1. got it. >> just to clarify also, give than there are not specific positions that are being looked at, i think that needs to be taken into account, too, that there needs to be some form of reserve or progra matic budget that takes into account that in this discussion, specific civilian positions have not been identified. >> got it. >> i'm comfortable with the $6
million. and when year two comes along, which is next year, if we have to make that adjustment, i'll fight for it. >> yeah. >> yes, supervisor? >> i just wanted to also mention that, you know, this is a four-year staffing plan so i think that what i'm hearing from this table is that everyone wants to get the police up to the 250 that they need. obviously. but we also would like a staffing plan for the whole -- i mean, the analysis that they're doing. but we are looking at other ways actually to get them there. i don't think we're in argument that we don't need the staffing. we're just saying that i think the b.l.a. through the report has identified different ways for us to get to that point. and so let's not lose sight of really where the conversation is. i think that no one has said,
you know, we don't even need that many and no one is saying i think there is another way to get there beside this is way. and that we can use some of our untapped resources that we currently have. you know, that also then lends more money for other things that actually the police department can use. but i also want to ask again for the b.l.a. is what is the overall increase in budgets for the police department given your recommended cuts. the overall growth. >> ok. so the -- based on our recommendations, the increase in the police budget, based on the recommendations that we have before you today is $44 million or about 7.5% in 18-19.
in the second year of the budget, based on our recommended reductions, the increase in the police budget is $40.2 million or 6.3%. >> ok. so, $44 million in this fiscal year is an increase in the police budget. and then next year it's $40.3 million. so, in two years it is $84 million increase. is that correct? >> that's correct. based on our recommendations. but as was pointed out to me, it doesn't include the policy recommendations of the 100 police positions. that is just our -- based on the recommendations -- >> so, about 200 more it would be that added cost on to it. >> no. the 50 academy would be -- >> no. so >> so, the numbers we provided you are the increase in the police budget based on the recommendations already accepted by this committee. they do not include the 100 positions. >> got it. ok. >> so $44 million this fiscal year. $40.3 million.
so in two years, $84 million increase. ok. thank you very much. >> i just have a question for chief scott. you still feel we need 250 officers over the next four years, is that correct? although you read the b.l.a. report? >> that is absolutely correct. yes. >> ok. and, you know, i just want to say, yes, i understand the reports that have been authored and i have read them and i have looked at them and i've looked at your staffing plan and i have thought, based on the conversations that i've had with people in the mayor's budget office within the police department that the approach that you laid out here was thoughtful and designed to address our current needs, which is property crime. to help our homeless outreach team to deliver services to those who are suffering on our streets and to create the psychiatric emergency response team, which is something that we're in desperate need of. so, i understand that we are
the budgets and finance committee. i understand that. and i understand that we need to make cuts. i also understand that we get to make decisions on what we want to invest in at the budgets and finance committee. and for me, and what i hear all the time and what i feel is that we have underinvested in our police department for years now and i trust that where you're coming from and the plan put before you is a plan i can live with, although we have all of those other reports out there. i still think they can guide us as we move forwafds. -- forward. but i'm fine with where we're at. thanks. >> thank you, supervisor stephanie. and supervisor sheehy. i want to recognize you and then speak next. >> thank you. i just want to be clear. what we're talking about right now in this budget cycle are 100 positions. so, for the other 150 positions, i don't think we're misaligned. talking about civilianizing
those positions. that is not something that someone is going to be able to come up with tomorrow. but over the process of the next year, i think we've given clear direction that we've seen 68 positions, and there may be more, that we can civilianize and might be less, but that dialogue has already started. you know, looking at staffing. and really getting a firm idea what that number is that -- that that analysis will take place over the next year. these are all things that can deal with the number of officers we need, the other 150 we need in the out years or the 100 that i don't think anybody would disagree that we need now. i have not heard anybody say we have an adequate amount of police officers on the streets and the decisions that we take today will influence this year and next year. we have 150 -- and the economy may look dramatically different two-years from now. so, the way in which we analyze that second set of -- that
traunch of officers in that later two years of however budget, we can bring additional information to bear on that. we'll know the outcomes from adding 100 officers. to be clear, we're at 1971 now, a number we've only been at once since the voters told us that's what they required and what they expected of us. and it is clear that the city maz chand. so i still firmly hope that we can continue with the staffing that the chief needs and that the residents expect us to provide. >> let me jump in here. because i think the point at issue is that we actually don't know what that number is. we don't know what we need. we don't know -- we have no idea. we've never studied it. we've allocated resources to begin to study. what that magic number is or what that aspirational goal may be on what's the most desired police staffing level.
so i think that that's a critical data point that we're missing in our analysis as to whether or not, you know, and supervisor stefani said several times that she trusts the department. my challenge is that experience has taught me is that you trust, but you have to verify. the way you verify is by having some kind of data or number to benchmark and to begin to anchor the conversation. otherwise, it's just based on feelings and emotion. and i -- that is just not enough. and i haven't heard enough of a compelling reason to feel like 250 -- an additional 250 officers will stoll problem. i'm of the school of thought that throwing more police at a problem doesn't solve a problem. and quite honestly, we have stuff instances and examples of where officers that we do have have been involved in shootings
that have hurt people and killed them. and it goes back to training. so we'll have more officers but we haven't had one modicum of discussion on how to increase our training program. we haven't had any discussion or policy around our community partnerships. we haven't had any conversation around -- we had a little bit of conversation around staffing levels due to the budget allocation that supervisor yee put forward last year. but it's just a round number. 250 officers has been requested. over a four-year implementation plan. this is where my struggle is. i want to clean up the record that 100 sworn hires replaced
with 50 civilians is not a one for one replacement. i think that there is a little bit of confusion that there be a -- in year two that there be a $6 million cost savings in cutting 100 hires and replacing them with 50 civilian hires. it is not a one on one replacement. supervisor yee? >> i -- i think our police department has done a real good job in the last few years and things -- certain crimes have gone down, actually. not necessarily because of increased number of police officers. it's a partially because chief scott has looked at different ways to work on the problem.
the most sufficient way to reduce certain crimes. thus deploying more officers to be on foot patrol. let's look at the whole notion of a crime unit in each police station. i think those things has nothing to do with whether we have overall more police officers, it's actually looking at ways to do more efficiently or more in a better way. woe aoep going back and forth as if we're cuting the 250 that chief scott has mentioned here that he needs and we don't know. i'm going to take his word for it today. that could change next year. and the fact that part of the
250 that is suggested here in the budgets that you already took into consideration 25 positions that could be civilianized means there's 225. the fact that you civilianize 25 positions means that you have 25 police officers today that could be out on the streets, not for a training to happen six months from now or a year from now. i think -- we're all saying the same thing. we want to protect our citizens. one of the ways me is you have police officers not necessarily doing police work. we want them to be out on the streets. there's 200, 100, whatever it is. i'm going to go conservative and hope that i'm right, that
this conservative number is doable. with 50. and maybe -- and i'm even going even more conservative in saying it won't be fully recognized until year two. so, whatever we can recognize to do immediately in six months, these are officers that will be out doing police work way before we can train anybody. i don't want us to lose that fact. we're not arguing it seems like we're arguing, at least i'm not arguing that i want these 250 that you think you need, that i want you to reduce and show me how it even reduces. all i'm saying this is a different way to get to your 250. so hopefully, you know, we could come to at least that understanding that we're not trying to greet -- reduce your 250 number.
in a way that, you know, all we're saying is that this is one way to get to it. and i'm going to continue supporting that. at least for the one piece of civilianization that could be a partial solution. >> thank you. so, question for the chief. so, the force has been steadily growing in size. since you've come on. correct? >> yes. >> so, these gains which we have achieved have been in the context of actually having more officers. so now we're at a plateau. correct? >> correct. well, we still have a few more to hire to get to our target. >> but in general. i think to me that is the real question is that we -- we -- you know, i've seen the foot patrols. we've seen the piloted neighborhood crime units but that is only possible because we've had more officers. it is not a change necessarily
>> sooner or later that's going to come back and catch up with us because we're not going to be able to support the work that we've made, the gains that we've had without being able to staff that. and irrelevant think that's what's being lost. we're talking about one additional academy class for the next two years in this budget cycle of 100 officers. that is what we need, and we are actually being very conservative with our ask. there are many other things that this department needs, but we're sticking it our priorities and staffing our priorities and our strategic planning, and quite frankly,
we're being quite conservative. there are many other needs that we're not coming before you with because we want to stick to our priorities, but we do need that staffing, and we do need that to happen during this budget cycle. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: just my last comment on this, and i want to state it in a very different way. if we train 50 new officers, and they all sit behind a desk, does that help you? >> if they all sit behind a desk? >> supervisor yee: yeah. if they're doing -- we're going to put these 50 people -- and they're not going to be available to police, we're going to put them behind a desk, is that going to help you? >> no. >> supervisor yee: and so what i'm saying there are 50 people sitting behind a desk that can help you today, and so we're not arguing whether, you know,
you deserve the 250. i'm just saying 50 could be helpful. so i don't want us -- i don't want this to become a discussion well, who supports what? it's a matter of whether you can get those 250. and i'm supporting that. i hope you understand that. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: i just want to concur to say that i think this discussion isn't about whether the chief needs 250. i think that it's a four-year plan that we're -- i think what we've been saying is that yes, these things are working, yes, we have resources within the police department now that can get us what we need also, and that we can use that. i don't think -- this is a four-year plan. this isn't saying that oh, you know, that he can't do it this year. we are looking long range at this, and i think that -- yeah,
i think that chief, you've done a great job. and quite frankly, our job on this budget committee is to look at public safety not only just by police and fire, but between looking at public safety by some of the safety nets that we would like to fund also. some of these services for our transgender youth, for youth and families, for higher education, for preschool, all of these other things we see is public safety, quite frankly. resources for homeless to lift them out of poverty. we are also wanting to work -- it is not just about -- maybe it's because i personally define public safety as many things. it is -- yes, police is core, but quite frankly, police don't prevent crime. we can prevent crime by investing in some of these other things. we have a list of $150 million
that nonprofits are asking also that are also saying we have seen great things in this, we have seen a reduction in homelessness, we have seen a reduction in youth crime. we heard from nance, that he said that the juvenile population is down. these are kind of the outcomes we want, too, and so we have one bucket of money here. and i think you are being conservative with some of this, but quite frankly, $84 million increase to your budget over two years -- i know this is just a part of it. but we are not saying here that foot patrols are not working, we are not saying that there shouldn't be more foot patrols whenever people want them. what we are saying is we are taking a leap of faith without a workload analysis to say that you say 250 -- not 243, not 239, not 189. it is a very round number.
we get 250 officers to do this job in four years. if that is the number that your workload analysis says, then yes, but we are trying to get you there in the most fiscally responsible way because we also believe that these investments in youth, in real -- and in things like keeping people out of homelessness, by giving mental health service to people or homeless families, those are all things also that are part of public safety. you are, of course, our law enforcement agency. no one is saying, i think here -- and i think the frustrating thing is the comments around this is what you need, and you should just get it, of what you need. we get it. we're just trying to get you there in a more fiscally responsible way, and i think you can agree. >> supervisor cohen: i have a proposal that will put us out of our own misery. okay.
so my question to you and maybe to your team. i've already checked in with the controller's office. how quickly can you do a civilian -- can you do an analysis? [inaudible] >> we think we can get an analysis done within six months with the help of the controller, i was just informed. >> supervisor cohen: that's what i was thinking, too. so this is what i'm hearing, and this is dividing this committee. you've got half the committee that says yes we've got the officers and we want to honor your request, and you've got half -- well, they're not
saying no, it's just got to be a little more controlled. so's athe chair i am -- so as the chair, i'm going to have to come in and split the baby and offer some compromise, and that is to move forward, approving a first-year for a class of -- excuse me -- get a civilian analysis completely done as soon as possible. and i think we need to get this done within the timeline that this body remains the same -- remains the same. and the reason why this body needs to remain the same is because we are now the subject matter experts when it comes to the discussion, the history, the report. it would be in nobody's best interest for -- if there was some kind of a -- if this bond can't be the one to make a final decision. we can put a portion of this on
reserve until we get a civilian analysis done -- i'm going to put it five months of the fiscal year. so you're going to clear the deck, whatever's on top, push it aside. this becomes a priority because we've heard consistently enough from not only members of this body, not only from the current mayor, not only from the mayor elect, and not only from the larger general conversations from san franciscans, there is a desire for police officers. our trouble is -- is that we don't know what that number will be, so we need to study to find it, and we need to study with urgency so that we can trust what is being presented to us, and that we can then verify what the data is telling us. and if the data comes back and says yes, we need to, and this body is going to move in that direction and approve and give the department what they're asking for. mr. controller, just real quick, i want just to make sure
that we're clear and on the same page. so -- because we're going to have to keep moving. we've spent an exorbitant amount of time on this, and we've already gone roundabout. we need to keep moving. so if we are unable to make a decision today, we will go as far as we can in terms of decisions, and what remains undecided, we will put on a reserve and wait for the analysis that the controller can provide for us to help us inform the decisions moving forward, and we're going to complete that, again, the first six months of the fiscal year. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: i just wanted to mention that 105 new officers will come on-line even without these additional
positions. >> supervisor cohen: that's correct. >> supervisor fewer: so it's not like we are -- >> supervisor cohen: absolutely, and i just want to be clear, they will be on the streets in december 2018. how about comments on this end? supervisor stefani, i see you. >> supervisor stefani: yes, just one more thing. obviously, some of us think differently about this issue, and some of us might be more willing to look at different types of documents to come to a decision, and that's clear. it doesn't mean that i am judging my colleagues for their decisions at all. i happen to feel, like i said, that the months of analysis that were done to produce the document that you worked on after engaging with your staff over months of review and call volume data over months of review and working on the controller's sector control report, for me, that is enough. i understand that's not enough for my colleagues.
and also, i want to be very clear that this is an issue that is extremely important to me. and i'm not saying that it's not extremely important to my lleags at all, but it's one of my number one issues because it's on the mind of my constituents and something that i am well versed in. i'm not saying everybody else isn't well versed in, but i'm just saying this is where i'm coming at it. and it certainly doesn't mean that i do not care about all the other priorities that we have. [inaudible] >> supervisor stefani: and it certainly doesn't mean that i don't see that we need reforms and whatnot, and we need to invest in those, as well. but i just want to be clear that obviously there's a difference of opinion. i truly believe that we need more sworn personnel on our streets based on the fact that i've lived here for 17 years, and i just want to make sure
that it doesn't mean that i don't see that we have a lot of other things to fix, as well. thanks. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: so i noticed the chief wanted to say something, but then, i have a comment. so did you -- or did the moment pass. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> yes. we will participate in any analysis, workload, studies, but i just want to reiterate, a lot of thought went into this ask, a lot of analysis went into this ask. we have report after report after report dating back 12 years ago, telling us the same thing, that we're underfunded, we're understaffed. you name the report, it's telling us the same thing. we'll definitely participate with this with all our effort and all, but what would i ask is that we fund those two academy classes so we can keep
the progress that we've made going. and to -- i just want to clear one thing up. there are officers that are doing nonpatrol functions. i want to remind everybody that we have 272 d.o.j. recommendations. we have a blue ribbon panel with a ton of recommendations. there is an administrative side to policing that i think is sometimes -- gets disrespected and undervalued. it cannot all be done by nonsworn people. we can definitely have some nonsworn people doing those jobs, but there is an administrative side in policing that is vitally important to any police department. so i just want to make sure that we understand that just because an offer's not working patrol or operations, those positions are equally valuable. so i don't want to walk out of this room with people thinking that an officer that's doing an administrative assignment, as important as it might be, that
there's no value to it, because it is. some of those positions, we will look at civilianizing, some of them we can't. so just for the record, i would ask the board to support the two additional classes during this budget cycle. and please appreciate that not all nonfilled operation -- nonfield operation positions are there just because officers want to be behind a desk. they're important positions, and they need the expertise of a sworn officer. >> supervisor sheehy: i just wanted to add, do we see any reason not to fund the additional class this year or in the next budget cycle? we can all agree that whatever analysis we need to do, we can do that, but we should definitely fund this first year class. we can't go back and fund it. >> supervisor cohen: i agree with you. i think we are in agreement of funding the first year class. where we don't have conken suspect is on the second year. >> and -- consensus is on the
second year. >> also, with these administrative positions, when we have emergencies like the liberty weekend and the north bay fires, those officers are pulled out of those positions to work vital operations. if we over civilianize, we don't have that option. you know, none of this stuff is done without thought, so i just want to remind the board that there is some validity to our report that some of these positions are nonoperational. that's it. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you for your presentation. supervisor fewer, your name is on the -- >> supervisor fewer: yes. i just wanted to thank the b.l.a. for this report that took months and months and months that had all this information.
i don't want to disregard it in any way. it's actually really important, but i actually do agree that there are some positions that need to be civilianized. my husband was in administration for years. i understand what we're talking about completely. what we're talking about is 202 positions and we're really talking about 68 out of the 202. so i agree. and again, i just really want to emphasize that it is not saying that we don't need more police on the streets, we don't need more uniformed folks out there. i think what this is saying we can get there. we can get there in a couple of different ways, and it always doesn't have to be straight out funding to the general fund, but it can be looking at resources we already have within our reach without adding any extra dollars to our general fund commitment. but i want to take a moment also to thank you chief scott and your force for all they do to keep san francisco safe, and i want you to know that we
appreciate your work. >> true. >> supervisor cohen: all right. i don't know if there's any other discussion that needs to be made, but i want everyone to sleep when they go home. thank you, chief, and the staff members that support the chief. we appreciate your time and expertise. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: with that said, b.l.a. thank you. i want to see if there are any last-minute remarks or comments. >> madam chair, actually, i don't have a comment. i do have a question that i'd like the chief to respond to. he has stated that -- and i agree, that there's a -- that crime costs money, and he gave you a chart. is he representing to you that if you approve his budget as he's requested, that those dollars are going to be saved from the general fund and subject to an analysis by the budget analyst where he can
document that he adds positions but he's going to show the committee and document that costs are going to be reduced as a result of reducing crime? >> supervisor cohen: that sounds like a very difficult question. >> yeah, i can answer that. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> no, i'm not representing that those dollars will be dollar for dollar from the general fund. if you have an opportunity to actually read the study, there's a number of methodologies that they use in the study. there's factors that go into these costs, including cost to the victim, cost to the general fund, in terms of policing, costs for incarceration, cost for court cases. there's a lot that goes into that study, but that is just a general representation of what it costs society for those particular categories of crime. so it's not a dollar-for-dollar exchange, and i'm not representing it that way.
but there is a cost to crime, as we all know. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i don't know if we can -- we can start to entertain some motions if you are so inclined, colleagues. >> supervisor yee: i just -- did you, earlier -- chair cohen? >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> supervisor yee: did you suggest a motion? >> supervisor cohen: i did not make it in the form of a real motion, and there was no real discussion around it. what i was suggests -- suggesting was a pretty ambitious goal. i was suggesting the b.l.a. cuts, i was suggesting one year of a police class moving forward, and the second one, putting that on a reserve pending a civilian analysis that would come back to us in november for a final decision to be made on whether or not a
second class can be -- a second academy class should be authorized. >> supervisor yee: and is there any reason why we need to put it on reserve versus just if we find that we absolutely need another class, we can fund it next year? >> supervisor cohen: i'm going to pivot to the budget. i believe that we -- i believe that we can. miss kirkpatrick, i think the question just -- this is a process question. i think the question is -- is that we approve one, and if we figure that we need another one based on the analysis, we can just add it. >> great question. so it is a choice. i mean, if you choose to reject the class, that many is realized as savings. you would then have to come up with additional funding the second year to fund that second class. the class is about $7 million peryear -- or sorry, for 50
officers. >> supervisor yee: so can i ask the question of the mayor's budget director -- interim director? so -- so last year, and when we did the -- some -- in the budget, we included a couple of academies. and one could argue that well, why didn't we add this year -- next year's into it last year? so -- so we're making a decision to not only it be funding what we suggested for a two-year budget, but also to add another class. so we do that all the time. every year, we seem to be adding one more class. so it's not -- to me, it's not unusual for -- if we decide to add another class next year. >> supervisor cohen: i think what i'm hearing you saying is that based on your experience
on the budget committee, that you've seen chiefs come back to us for requests with additional academy classes. >> supervisor yee: like this year. this budget ask reflects exactly that. and i guess knowing that there's a possibility that we may want to support a second class or not. we don't know. i'm -- i prefer to go the other way around, where we actually don't support the second-year class this year, so we have that funding available to meet some more immediate needs. and there's a decision i know in next-year's budget cycle, that by the way, this civilian position doesn't work, we need to step up to support that class that you wanted. >> supervisor cohen: let me take the converse of that. what if we approve an additional two academy classes, and then decide that we don't need one? can you cancel it later? >> if it is in the second year
of the budget, you revisit that, so it would become the first year of the budget, and you make that choice. >> supervisor cohen: mm-hmm. and you would make that choice during the budget season, the budget cycle. >> mm-hmm. we could do that during next year's budget. so maintaining the money in the budget gives you the flexibility to make the choice next year. >> supervisor cohen: i think i'm interested in doing that and just maintaining the money in the budget so that there's two choices available next year. that's probably more easier to accomplish than cutting it out of the budget and then trying to scramble to find it. it's $11 million. it's not a hard scramble, but it's just putting it together. so -- so -- so supervisor -- supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: i just had a point of clarification. we're talking about classes, but we really mean our positions, so when we talk about year one, continuing with the additional class, we're
actually talking about keeping 50 positions in year one. so everyone's clear that that's what we're talking about. and then, year two, if we do deo e ther put on rerve or go ahead and fund that with the option of defunding that, that's 50 positions? okay. thank you. cobb cone supervisor sheehy, i'm -- >> supervisor cohen: supervisor sheehy, can you repeat that question? i'm sorry. >> supervisor sheehy: we've been talking about classes, but what we're actually talking about is positions, so 50 positions in this year's budget and 50 positions in next year's budget. so there's some discussion about keeping 50 positions in next year's budget. so that was the clarification that i wanted to kind of make sure that we're talking about, keeping 50 positions in this year's budget, and then for the following year, you know, we're debating whether to put them on reserve or to go ahead and fund
them. we're describing it as a class, but what we really mean are 50 positions. just a point of clarification, that's all. >> supervisor cohen: right, and i think that kind of enhances and supports what i was saying. if that is the case, then, we can substitute it out and deduce it on the two-year budget, but what's important is we're not in a position of trying to backfill for an additional class. i think there needs to be more information when it comes to an analysis, when it comes to staffing. yes? >> supervisors, just a technical item for year two, if you do put the 50 positions on reserve, which i'm not supporting, then you would have that money available for civilianization positions. >> supervisor cohen: so to have it available for civilianization, as well. so what exactly does that mean? what are you -- >> oh, meaning you could
convert those positions to civilian positions in the budget in year two. >> supervisor cohen: mm-hmm, but it's all contingent on the budget being approved. so approving the budget still leaves you with more flexibility on how to tweak it. i'm thinking about the budget for year two, is that right? >> yeah. >> mr. rosenfeld? i'm sorry. i thought i caught you shaking your head no. >> no, no, no: you've articulated the discussion while here at the committee. the committee couldic ma the reduction to year two, and then entertain the possibility of restoring a class in year two next year, that will require you to identify another 6 to $7 million for a midyear class at that point, or i think what supervisor yee has suggested, what you've suggested, leaving the money in the budget, and if you felt the class wasn't
needed, you could reprogram the money at the time the budget is in front of you next year. again it's a choice for the committee. >> supervisor yee: i actually did not say that. >> supervisor cohen: i know. i said that. i know, and when you resaid it, it sounded like a good idea. all right. -- all right. let's take it from the top. i'm going to try to -- i want to put together kind of where we are today. it sounds like i'm going to be leaning into supporting for a second -- supporting the second year funding for an academy class in the second year. and in the first year, i would like to see a civilian analysis for staffing, and one part of the conversation that we did not have that still has to do that's related to the budget is around the tasers. and i'm going to --
[inaudible] >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. i also just wanted to say if we could add to the civilianization, is that we also look at the -- ask the police department to look at the other -- which is the rotation shift. >> supervisor cohen: say that again? >> supervisor fewer: the shift rotation scheduling. yes. i'd like to have the conversation. after we're done with the staffing conversation, then, i'd like to have a conversation about tasing. >> supervisor cohen: well, we are done with the staffing conversations now, and we can move on. >> madam chair, just a clarification. would you planning to place the funds on the calendar for the second academy pending the review of your discussion of the specific station? >> supervisor cohen: yes.
>> okay. >> supervisor cohen: all right. miss fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. so i see that in the budget, $3.5 million total for tasers, the implementation. 2.5 the first year and 1 million the second year, year two. i passed out a b.l.a. analysis of the true cost of tasers, and i want to emphasize that this, what i passed out, in this shaded part, is actually the training that this is -- b.l.a. did an analysis based on the police commission taser policy, and these are the real and true costs. if we were to implement it in the way that the police commission has voted onto approve the taser use policy. now, the -- the ones that are adowed with this beige shadowing is actually the -- the training costs that the taser training can be
incorporated into these costs that they're already doing. the crisis intervention team, the crisis innovation team, the criscost, and the use of policy force updating training. so they're in the process of this now, and again, the training can be absorbed for the tasers into this. i think that because there's been this lack of transparency about the real costs and true costs, and also that a training -- i think we would need to see a training timeline completed to see how many people could be trained in a certain period of time, and i don't know if we would be able to do that this first year, i would actually cut the first year of 2.5 and put the second year on reserve when we might be ready to actually put people on the street with tasers,
fully trained. >> supervisor cohen: all right. let's -- i don't know if the b.l.a. -- or let me let the chief respond and then we'll hear from the b.l.a. >> thank you. so i have -- to save time, i'm going to go to director mcguire and commander walsh on these costs because we don't -- we don't agree with the costs as presented, so turn it over. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisors, the budget request is 2 million in the first year and 1 million in the second year, dearrivrived by t actual purchase and training, that we don't have the funds to train officers as we roll them out. essentially, my understanding with respect to the training costs that are itemized here,
is that this is salary's cost. ultimately, it could be represented as overtime. we wouldn't necessarily run our trainings on overtime, but again, we're not asking for additional budget to pay officers to train. they're already paid, and we would assign them or detail them to the training as appropriate. and i'm happy to answer anymore questions about the details of the cost analysis. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: i'd like to ask the b.l.a. on this report that actually h has $.5 million set aside for integration with body worn cameras, which i think the first analysis did not include. yes? >> supervisor cohen: real quickly, before you go to the b.l.a. just one secon i have a question for the department also piggybacking off what you just said, supervisor fewer. how many units does the $2 million purchase actually
yield, and then, who would get them first? >> so i'll answer your second question first. so the way the policy is currently setup, the officers that would get specifically the tasers would be everybody who has the 40 hour c.i.t. training. that number's roughly around 900 right now. we would significantly push towards patrol and in the district stations, not necessarily one station at a time, similar to what we did -- that is what we did with body camera, so this will be more of a gradual push out in all the districts. so those officers who have both the 40 hour c.i.t. training and the 20 hour c.i.t./use of force training, so that number is roughly right now around 900, and we are not -- by the commission's authorization, not
allowed to start this until december of 2018, which gives us that lead up to have the logistics and the total training ready to go for december-january to move those groups out, and it would be gradual based on class size. and then, we would also have to determine how long is our particular use of a taser device class going to be 'cause that's additional training. they generally go-between -- nas wide as an example between six and ten hours to actually physically use a taser. >> supervisor cohen: so you're saying training is usually somewhere between six and ten hours. >> just for the taser device itself. >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's helpful. thank you. >> and supervisor, just to answer your question about how many purchases, it will depend on multiple things, but the first of -- first of all is our ability to procure the devices
as a cost savings -- at a cost savings, which should be about $1600 perunit. so 1600 -- the $1600 price would be a pretty competitive price, so we gave ourselves about a 10%ly w leeway on that well. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. we will hear from b.l.a. now. >> supervisor fewer, your question was about $500,000 as part of the taser cost spending plan. can you hear me? >> supervisor fewer: yeah. excuse me. i'm so sorry to interrupt you, but i think that i have passed this out to all my colleagues, with you maybe you could go through what they're looking at your analysis here dated june 8, 2018, on the -- on the -- the taser policy. >> sure.
so this is an analysis of the spending plan for the implementation of tasers. we looked at the police commission's policy, including all the training requirements. we looked at the requirement purchase requirements, and then, we looked at the ongoing costs of having project managers in dedicated positions assigned to seeing this implementation through, as well as equipment replacement costs and other sort of administrative requirements, such as, you know, meetings among the command staff to assess the sort of recent use of these weapons, and that's basically where these numbers come from. some of theme are direct costs, right -- them are direct costs, and i can itemize them if you'd like. some of them are just -- particularly like the cost associated with meetings of the review board or certain training requirements, like the
c.f.o. just said, of the police department, those are sort of just a dollar estimate on the hours associated with carrying out those tasks. it's not necessarily a number you could pull out of the budget. now just to answer your specific question, supervisor fewer, about the .5 million for data integration, so that is actually leftover project funds from the body camera project that has never been spent but previously allocated by the board that will then be used to integrate information between the tasers and the body cameras, and that entire service, consulting costs, i think the department can speak to more specifically, is estimated to cost around $500,000 and again, will be drawn from fund balance from the body camera project. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so you're telling me that the body cameras have to talk to
the tasers, kind of in a way. >> my understanding, yeah. >> supervisor fewer: okay. great. so you also included -- so there's one-time cost excluding training. and could you tell us that amount, please. >> the one-time cost, excluding training that would otherwise occur, if given you have -- that the board is leaning towards the new staffing structure of the department, would be about 7.2 -- excuse me. would be $7.2 million for one time costs. and then, the ongoing costs, we believe, would be $2.6 million. and this accounts for the -- the new staffing that the department is requesting in this budget cycle. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: do you want to -- >> yes. so that cost does include, as we said, the training, which is
an ongoing cost. we are going to train every officer on the c.i.t., both 40-hour and the 20-hour field tactic/use of force, regardless whether or not we had tasers. however, it's in the policy that in order to be issued a taser, the officers have to have that training, but that training will happen regardless of -- irregardless of the taser issue. so although there is a -- in the red cost associated with the cost of the officer's time, that cost is there any way. it's already included in our budgetary request, so it's not an individual costa attributable to tasers per se. as we see it, our cost and our ask is really the cost of the unit, and basically that, and that alone is what we're asking for. >> supervisor fewer: i think that -- correct me if i am wrong, b.l.a., that the cost of $7 million does not include the
training cost. is that correct? >> it only includes the threat assessments field tactics training, which i understand would not happen the next two years at the scale without the implementations of tasers. that's one of the required trainings to obtain a taser? but in my conversation with the department, they told me that that would likely not occur over the next couple years. >> supervisor fewer: if we can't have a taser -- >> yeah. so that does not include the top three trainings on that sheet. >> supervisor fewer: that they would get any way. >> that they would get any way. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, are there any other questions about tasers or the discussion of them? i don't have anything else. i don't have any other questions. i've asked mine. thank you. so there's a couple things here that we can do. we