tv Government Access Programming SFGTV June 28, 2018 7:00am-8:01am PDT
traditionally, the attorney general's office will only step in if they either find that there's some way that there has been misconduct by the local prosecutor or the local prosecutor is having resource allocation problems or there is some other unusual set of circumstances. also, when it comes to the u.s. attorney's office, they have different tools, they have civil rights tools that are not part of the state tools that prosecutors have at the local level. and also, in the case of the attorney general, the state level, they also have other tools -- they can do consent decrees, and they can do other levels of enforcement that are not available to the district attorney. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes, if
you. i i just wanted to make a few comments on what you said. i think that the charge of this office, that the accusations should be thoroughly, thoroughly investigated and actually with impartial mind, in that we bring all the facts to the table. and yes, i think it was disappointing to the public that no indictments or charges were brought forth, but i understand your position, and i think you're in a hard position, because one, we want the office to be somewhat neutral and not have a predetermined out come, as you said, and we want to have a thorough investigation. i think it's what the residents of san francisco, to have these allegations that are so serious to be investigated very thoroughly. so i understand also that supervisor cohen has called for an audit of this department,
when there is probable cause to do so. and i also want to reiterate that our desired out comes can never be tied to our desire for convictions in a case and a desire to see people punished when they haven't broken the law. if the law needs to change, that is another conversation. i think we need to take every precaution not to politicize the criminal justice system. it is something that i see happening all the time, and it is something that i will not do. for that reason, i'm not prepared to support the motion made at this time. i think that i just want to be very careful that i see this as something that needs to get done in terms of investigations, and that it needs to be investigated in a way that upholds the law. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: all right. great. thank you. supervisor yee, any thoughts that you wanted to share? so what i was thinking of doing was funding for part of the
year, one-third. year, that's approximately.9 million, and put the rest in reserve pending the controller review, supervisor fewer, so it augments a little bit of what you're saying, and in that augmentation, it has to just -- it's calling into account where we are in the fiscal year, and when we expect the -- the report. >> may i make a comment before you take a motion? >> supervisor cohen: yes, go ahead. >> if the goal of the audit is to look for reasons or somehow influence my office into filing cases or prosecuting, i'd like to save you the taxpayers money, there's no need to do an audit. i will not accept the funding, and you might as well defund the unit, and we will inform the police department that we will no longer respond to the investigations. we will finish the work that we
started, and then we will proceed accordingly. i don't want to lead anyone to believe that our work will be predicated on funding because i think it could actually jeopardize current investigations, and that will be a problem for me professionally, it will be a problem for me morally, and it will be a problem for me legally. so if there is an insinuation here that this audit here is somehow going to create a scenario where we're likely to file a case, then i would recommend that you do not fund this because i will not accept the funding. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: so i don't think that's something that i would agree to, either. i feel like this is not an audit to see whether or not people charge or don't charge or whatever. i think supervisor cohen can explain more about the audit, but i think that what it will bring to light is sort of an
analysis of what is actually going on and fiscally also in that department. >> supervisor cohen: that's right. so you're the one that's framing the issue as work is predicated on funding. that's how you're framing it, and i would imagine you're signaling because you have a long-term vision. i ignored the comment but now i feel like i'm forced to address it. this is the budget and finance committee. our job is to make sure that taxpayer dollars are being funded in the most efficient manner. so what the controller's office is doing is conducting a simple review of how the money has been spent. we don't know. you've had the money since 2017, and we don't know, but here we are, faced with a task to address the question, should we continue funding? we don't know if we should continue funding because we haven't had a report back. we don't know how money has been spent, so that is -- the review is very clean, and i believe there's honor and integrity in that request, which is why the controller is doing it. i'm not personally doing it.
the budget and legislative analyst is doing it. >> so long as it is a work analysis and workload analysis, we're fine with that. i just want to make it very clear that otherwise i will not want the funding. >> supervisor cohen: that is exactly what it is. i understand that -- so is there any -- supervisor fewer -- excuse me, not supervisor fewer, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: thank you, supervisor cohen, i think that is exactly spot on. i think we'll bring this on audit up for the police department, and it's the same thing i asked for staff efficiencies, which is gives us an opportunity to see where funding should be allocated and so forth. if that is the case, i support the notion of this audit, and that -- i'd like to see if anything, we are going to go into the direction of putting something in reserves, that it be six months, give us an
opportunity for the controller to finish his audit and also for us to absorb it and have a discussion around it. >> supervisor cohen: what was that last part, supervisor? >> supervisor yee: that i would support supervisor fewer's six-month timeline reserve and to have a discussion on the audit because this is going to take some time for the audit to be completed, and as you know, when we start scheduling a hearing around -- around items like the audit, it's going to take sometime for us to have a discussion and some conclusion. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, i just wanted to -- i was going to ask supervisor fewer if she would modify her motion. she says six months of a year, because we're in june and she believes we will go into december. but given that the fiscal year syncs up kind of differently than the calendar year, i'm going to ask that we fund
one-third of the year, which is approximately $.9 million, and put the rest on the reserve pending the results of the controller review. >> supervisor yee: so meaning that i -- end of september, we should have -- >> supervisor cohen: that's correct. we are expecting to have ultimate ares by the end of september. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yes, and this is for the controller so i feel comfortable about the audit, what are you looking for? i'd just like it on the record to be sure that we're not politicizing this, that it's a normal audit that you would conduct in the normal course of business. >> that's correct, supervisor. the chair's requested we conduct a review of this function. the scope of that would be to review actual spending in prior appropriations and as the d.a. indicates, some workload analysis of how the workload of this unit compares to the rest of the district attorney's office and other departments
engaged in similar work. so that's the scope in mind. i've indicated to the chair that we could likely complete the report by the end of september. we have not had a meeting with the district attorney to set our final scope, but that's how we're envisioning the final timeline looking. >> supervisor yee: okay. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: so just given that the audit wouldn't be finished until the end of september, then, you're already cutting it pretty close. did you say a third of a year? >> supervisor cohen: i said a third of a year, given a third of the year would be the end of september. i'm taking the direction from the controller's office who's asked for -- who's made the
suggestion. >> supervisor yee: so basically, we would have something to request -- decision to release the funds by the end of september. >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> i think four months would leave three months for us to complete the work and for this committee to complete it and one month to consider to release the reserve, but the choice of time is really at your discretion. >> supervisor fewer: okay. i think, if i may, i think it's really important to note that putting this money in reserve is saying that we're not eliminating the department, or that we as a committee issic at thatting back funds. but i do want to put on the record, this is the budget and finance committee. it is our job to do oversight,
it is our job to make sure that taxpayers' money, our workers of san francisco, this money that we are in charge of allocating hard earned on the backs of san franciscans are spent in the best possible way to serve the public. and the idea that an audit would be something that would -- is something that shouldn't be called for or shouldn't be considered is just absolutely not doing your job as a legislator of san francisco. and so regardless how you feel about politically what's going on, i think it is doing due diligence, quite frankly, to have an audit, and it is our responsibility to the people of san francisco to take those audits very, very seriously when we are making these huge budgetary considerations.
so yes, chair cohen, i am actually ready to suggest your amendment of a third and the controller's suggestion also, to your conversation about doing a third of the year's budget and putting the rest on reserve after that, and to hear, actually, the findings of the audit. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: just one clarifying question. i'm wondering how much are we putting on reserve, and how much are we funding, and i would also like to reiterate i am all for audits, but comes on the heels of the discussion we just had that this budget and finance committee is not politicizing the issue. so i just want to know what we're putting on reserve and what are we funding? >> supervisor, so the -- the total budget for the unit is approximately 2.7 million, so if you were to place two thirds of the year or eight months on reserve, you would be reserving
approximately 1.8 million and leaving 0.9 million unreserved. >> supervisor stefani: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: and can you say that one more time. you said 1.8 million allocate -- >> the motion is effectively to place 1.8 million of the $2.7 million funding for it on reserve -- funding in reserve. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. supervisor fewer, i believe you had a motion on -- if you want to withdraw your motion, i'm happy to restate it. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor cohen: i need you to withdraw it. >> supervisor fewer: so i am happy to withdraw it, and i believe that supervisor cohen is going to state another motion. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee, your name is on the roster.
>> supervisor yee: yes. i just want to say that you would support a budget reserve of six months, and not four months. i want to support the motion, but realistically, the timing doesn't seem right. i don't know that you can -- after you get the report, you're giving no time -- if the decision is to cut, then it doesn't give his department any time to -- >> supervisor cohen: to ramp down. >> supervisor yee: so i'm feeling uncomfortable, not just because of the notion of the reserve, but because the timing of it. i would support a six-month, but not a four-month. >> supervisor cohen: ben rosenfeld, could you speak to the supervisor's concerns about timing in terms of -- >> it's very much a choice for the committee. we'll intend to complete our work by the end of september. how much time you then want to have to review that and other
questions you have prior to releasing the reserve is really the choice of the committee. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: so after hearing supervisor yee, respectfully, chair cohen, i would like to resubmit my motion to have -- put -- release six months of the fund, but after that, put the rest of the money on reserve pending the audit -- pending the audit, thanks. cone ko>> supervisor cohen: a right. that's fine. so we will take a vote on the motion supervisor fewer has made, and we will take a roll call vote yu yu can you repeat the motion? >> supervisor fewer: yes. the motion is to release six months of the funding and put the rest in reserve pending the result and discussion of the audit. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor stefani?
>> supervisor stefani: so i would just like to know, how does this change the monetary reserve of the unit and how much is in reserve? >> supervisor fewer made a motion to place 1.4 in reserve, which is half the cost of the unit. >> supervisor fewer: yes, i would like to state it is not a reallocation of the money or we wi will -- actually taking away the funding, it's just so we can analyze what we will learn from the audit. >> supervisor stefani: okay. >> supervisor cohen: all right. madam clerk -- i'll second her motion. could you do a roll call vote?
[roll call] >> clerk: there are three ayes, one no, with supervisor cohen in dissent. >> supervisor cohen: all right. so one thing we need to think about is year two moneys, so i'll make a motion that we put that on reserve until we have more of an idea about the budget. >> supervisor fewer: i second that. >> supervisor cohen: all right. can we take that without objection? without objection, thank you. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: okay. moving on. city administrator. want to welcome the city administrator back to the chamber, with
departments at 49 south vanness to create a one-stop permit center, and it's necessary to have a level of position with the skill set to work with department heads at building inspection, the fire department, city planning, the department of public health behavioral -- not behavioral health, environmental health services to make sure we have a true stream lined one stop permit center spot for everyone to go to. we would still like to reject the 18 -- the deletion of the 1822 administrative analyst position. i know this position has been sitting vacant for some while, but it is to work on a mandate for -- that the 14(b) local
business enterprise ordinance is asking us to come up with a prompt payment program for our small l.b.e.'s who actually do work, but invoices are submitted two months later in flying to help them float cash flow in order to pay their workers, and it is a program that has been befuddling to us, quite frankly. we're trying to come up with programs -- low interest programs work with our now market tax credit board and in working with our city attorney to find ways where we're not violating the laws but yet supporting our small construction worker who do work on behalf of the city. on the policy and reserves recommendations totaling -- we are accepting the proposed reserves for the hall of
justice for the exit out of the hall of justice to do furniture fixture and equipment, and we've been working with the budget and legislative analyst's to make sure that happens in september so we can exit out of the hall of justice. as for the cannabis regulation, we would propose to accept general fund operating atrition cut of 45,000, which would be ongoing instead of denying the 1823 senior administrative analyst position, and we'd also like to finally reject the denial of the 0932 -- we'd like to reject the recommendation to deny the 0932 manager 4 position for the transgender initiatives office. i'm here to answer any questions if you have any.
>> supervisor cohen: thank you. thank you. colleagues, are there any questions? thank you for your presentation. we're going to pivot to the b.l.a. and hear their thoughts. >> madam chair, as i understand the disagreements -- >> supervisor cohen: yes. >> on page 55, we previously reported to you that this position has been vacant since 2013. the department has three vacant 1822 positions since at least 2016. department is projected to have over 2.3 million in department salary savings in 17-18. we continue to recommend that you delete that one administrative analyst position for a savings of $139,665.
the second disagreement -- >> supervisor cohen: one more time, harvey, what was that? >> the savings woulding 139,665. >> supervisor cohen: no, the classification. >> it's an 1822, which has been vacant since 2013. this is the one where i think the committee asked about priorities -- >> supervisor cohen: mm-hmm. i recall. >> next item, as i understand it, of disagreement, is on page 56 of our report, where we recommend that you deny the proposed upward substitution of one 1052 i.s. business analyst to one f.t.e. 1053 i.s. business analyst senior due to inadequate justification. this position, by the way, would result in a 44% increase in salary. forgetting about fringe benefits, just salary of 44%
increase. the department of technology is transferring digital services to administrative services in order to, quote, stream line operations, end of quote, denying this upwards substitution will still result in a net gain -- oh, not disagreeing with that. >> we agree with that. >> i'm sorry. so what's the next one? [please stand by]
is sufficient to perform the duties described by the department and to provided a adequate supervision of the unit and staff. this position, if you accept their recommendation, will result in a 62% increase in salary. just for salary. what is the next one? on page 56 of our report, the office of cannabis -- that's this one right here, is that correct? this is where we recommend that you deny the proposed upward substitution of 1-1052i.s. business manager analyst to one f.t.e.1053i.s. business analyst senior due to inadequate
justification. >> we accepted that one. i'm sorry. >> ok. was there another one that you disagree with? >> yes. it was the 1840 junior management assistant to the 1823 senior administrative analyst. >> what page is that? >> that is on page 56. >> i think that we talked about that, didn't we? >> yes. >> we spoke to that. that was the 44% increase in salary.
ok. 55, 57. ok. so this is -- you're objecting, as i understand it, to the 1823 -- excuse me. the 0932 manager -- is that correct? >> yes. for the officer of -- >> on that one on page 57, we recommend that you deny -- what is the increase on that one? deny the proposed upward substitution of -- how much? oh. it's -- ok. deny the upward proposed substitution of 1.04535 development services manager to one f.t.e.0932 manager four and approve upward substitution to one f.t.e.0923 manager two. the position will oversee two f.t.e.s and the job description is more aligned with an 0923
manager two, which would provide sufficient supervision. the department claims to have already filled this position at the 0932 level without board of supervisor approval. so, we can consider this to be a policy matter for the board for that reason that it was done prior to the board's approval. >> thank you for your presentation. supervisor furor has a few questions for city administrator. >> so i'm looking on page 56 and it dez deny the proposed upward substitution of one f.t.e. of 1840 junior management assistant to one f.t.e.1823 senior administrative analyst. and i think this was the position that had this huge increase in salary. and so in your opening remarks, you said that you were willing to give back $45,000 of general fund to balance out the difference between the 1840 position and the 1823 position
and that would be ongoing so you would continue to fund this position. but isn't this position not out of general funds to begin with? >> that is correct. these -- all of these positions that we're discussing are nongeneral fund positions. and with the office of cannabis, as you and supervisor cohen both know, we were basically flying the plane while we were building it at the same time because it was moving fast with state law. and so yes, we originally thought we needed an 1840, but quickly realized that we needed someone to do bilingual communications, we needed someone who was extensive in writing regulations, someone extensive in writing systems and having -- on top of having cultural sensitivities. and so we realized that we needed a different skillset than an 1840 junior management position. and, yes, we are proposing to accept general fund operating
attrition cut of $45,000 to deal -- to address the difference -- >> in that salary schedule. >> that is correct. that is correct. ok. so, i just have a question about the 1822 and also the permit senate manager. so, which one is the 14-b position? is that if 1822? >> the 1822. that's correct. >> ok. that is the 14-b and this is a nongeneral fund position also. >> that is a nongeneral fund position. >> and there is three vacant and you want to fill one of them. correct? >> that's correct. >> and 0933, a manager position? manager two, you want to switch it to a manager five? >> that is correct. >> ok. and that position is for the new permit center to manage the new permit center that is going to be on vaness. >> that is correct. >> so, this is a brand-new position that actually you
anticipated earlier to be atening maer two and the b.l.a. is suggesting that a manager five is not necessary for that position. >> hold on. i'll have the deputy minister speak to this one. >> thank you. >> good morning. city administrator's office. the position is being created as a new position and we had worked with the department of human resource and they had also went through the classification process we classified last week and classified it as a 0933. the budget legislative analyst office is suggesting downgrading that to a 0923. we're not requesting to take an exiting 0923 and t.x. it up. this is a new position. new request that has gone through the classification. >> ok. so, the b.l.a. and the b.l.a.'s report suggested that actually this position wouldn't come into full potential or capacity
until fiscal year 2019-2020. so, why would you need to upgrade it to a manager five position now when actually the supervision doesn't actually require a position that high? >> we need to fill the position right now because currently i'm actually doing portions of the work trying to set up everything that needs to be done to create a new permit center. we started the work and building the work at vaness. we're working with 11 different departments that will have permitting center operations there. we've been doing extensive work with the controllers office and we need the manager to begin really taking charge of that and planning for the future and somebody who's going to be responsible for it. that person is not only helping us finish working out the physical layout, developing the new system and work with treasury and tactical office for cashiering, developing new system changes to help those departments move more work online. we're currently working with
planning and with building inspection in order to begin electronic plan review. and so this individual would work with those departments and help coordinate that effort with the department of technology and others. we are also reviewing the permitting processs to see which ones could be streamlined which we're doing through the office of cannabis. this would help lead that effort working with the services team. there's a whole laundry list of work waiting for the -- >> hold on a minute. the person is not doing the work now. right? everything that you just described is actually in process now. i think what supervisor furor was saying, at least what i heard, was why do you need it now when the person won't even be into the position until next year? >> we need to be able to open a successful one-stop 38,000 square foot permit center in spring of 2020. we will not be able to -- we are already behind the game. quite honestly where we're at
with this process. we need somebody right now who's taking full charge and running this process or we will not successfully open what we promised. >> supervisor -- legislative analyst. >> madame chair and members of the committee, we are not de-emphasizing the very important functions and the many functions that are needed for this office in any way, shape or form. what we're reporting to you is, as i stated before, this is a 62% increase in salary. by taking this -- these actions and the position would only be supervising three positions. we believe that our recommendation is reasonable for a slight downgrade to that -- downgrade to that position. >> thank you. supervisor? >> yes. i have a question. what is the salary difference between a manager two and manager five? what is the exact dollar amount? >> manager five, supervisor
furor, is $178,221. >> that with benefits or without? >> no, that's without benefits. that's just the salary. and the manager two is $109,928. that is a increase from -- $178,221 to $109,920. >> actually, i think he brings up a good point. that this is a -- the job description, although sounds lengthy of what you have to do, i understand that it would be difficult to recaoult for someone of this caliber. perhapss in a management two position. but why all the way from management five position to a position that was 109 -- $110,000 to -- >> i'm sorry. i'm going to correct the [inaudible]. i think he is incorrect.
i hardly do that to you because you're never incorrect. but i think the 100% is 142 as i see in this report, not 109. the 109 reflects a .77 full-time equivalent. >> that is correct. >> thank you for the correction. >> oh, ok. >> can you restate it again? manager fives $178,000? >> $178,221 and manager two -- in the second year it would be $142,764. >> so, it is about a $35,000 increase. you are correct. >> thank you. many minds on this budget. thank you very much. so i guess what i want to hear is sort of that is it that you first thought it could be a
manager two and when you look at the scope of work, you realize it is a management five or also after you see what this will entail it will be difficult to recruit a person of this caliber with -- with extra skills needed at a management two level. >> i just need to correct the record one more time. this is not a increase request or substitution request. we do not have a current 9023 that we're pressing to increase. >> ok. got it. >> we have a new set of functions and job responsibilities, which we work with the department of human resources to classify. they went through the classification process which director callahan described to the committee last week. they provided that documentation to chair cohen's office this morning and it was classified as a 0933. what we need to do as a department, if we do not have this classification, we nao ed
to go back and revise the job description and basically not be able to accomplish what we need to accomplish. >> got it. i'm sorry. i got it confused because there are a couple of upward substitutions, quite frankly. so, that is why it's really confusing of the substitutions that weren't actually approved by the board and already done. so, this is a new position and the mayors has given direction, no new positions. and so you have an argument with the mayor that actually even though the mayor said there are no new positions that this one so important in order to get our city going that you are not following his budget directions, is that correct? >> correct. >> ok. got it. >> can i just add, supervisor, that when we are opening buildings, we do have positions that need to be filled. [laughter] and we can either outsource it
or make sure that the building runs. >> supervisor stephani. >> i would just like to ask a clarifying question about the 1822 position and the 14-b requirement. i know that that is actually a mandated program. and if you can talk about the importance of that. >> sure. sure. so, we've been struggling for years and i can tell the story of -- and it is a true story out at s.f. general when we're building the new hospital, one of the first things that a sub does is if you have a big general contractor delivering that project. often times an l.b.s sub does demolition. that is on day one of the job. but the general contractor doesn't submit the invoice to the city until maybe three months later. so, that small sub of maybe having two or three employees or four or five employees on
has to wait until that general contractor submits the invoice. and then the city takes its time to review the the invoice and make sure it's done. it could be four or five months to make sure that subcontractor who's done business can get paid. under our charter, we cannot pay an invoice -- we cannot pay a contractor until an invoice is submitted. so what we've been struggling with -- and i say decades -- is how do we make sure that our small, local contractors who we all agree, the city, the general contractor has done work but the invoice has been submitted have access to capital just to keep them going. so we looked at paying early. of the charter doesn't allow that. we are working with our new market tax credit board to see if we can take loans to low-interest loans for these small contractors. it was actually legislation
that supervisor chu put together. we've been struggling with how to do it without violating our charter and finding a source of funds to work on this program. so we're just almost over the line in coming up with that on how to implement this policy directive. >> this has been vacant since 2013. they have other ray cants positions. they can fill a position. they don't need this position. >> i understand it's a policy decision. i understand that you argued that for years. did you get your question answered, supervisor? supervisor yee? >> just back to the manager five versus two position. what is the rationale again? explain the .s 77.
>> well, so this is, again, a new position that is being proposed as an interim exception which means that the position they're asking for it to start on july 1. we do not believe that they're going to be able to fill the position. in that timeframe. so, we -- so part of our recommendation was to reduce the f.t.e. from one full f.t.e. to .77 to account for that delay. and in addition, the -- as we've already stated, we believe that the manager two classification is sufficient for this work as the position will only oversee three f.t.e. and looking at the job descriptions of the manager five and the manager two. >> city administrator kelly. >> yes. sorry i misspoke because different pieces of documents going back. we accept the delay in the hiring of .77 to retain the 0933. sorry about that. >> ok. that is exactly where i was heading. >> yeah.
>> i personally would support as keeping it as aening maer five. but at .77 during the first year. >> and just going back and forth on the 14-b position, we will accept the dilution of that position. that's fine. >> i'm sorry. what did you -- >> 14-b, oh. may i? >> hold on. >> explain that. >> are you jumping -- are you jumping? i'm sorry. i was talk about manager number five. >> ok. sorry. >> are you talking about a different position or same position? >> different position. >> ok. >> i would like to keep it. but the policy decision with the board on the 1822 position. >> chair cohen, right? >> thank you very much. actually, i'm ok with the 1822 position. even though mr. rose is
suggesting that we probably don't need that position. actually having done some work now with our l.b.e.s, i think that 14-b position should have been filled years ago, quite frankly. and it is overdue. oim ok with the 14-b. this is a nongeneral fund expense. but i feel like it's really needed, especially now in the crisis that we're having of small businesses able to -- being able to survive here. i also am ok with the cannabis position being upgraded to a mutual fund-from a junior management 1840 to a 1823. although i do concur with my colleague, supervisor cohen, that these sort of upward substitutions that we're seeing actually, i think that we need to have some mechanism so that the board can get control of it because -- but in this circumstance, i just want to say that when we were developing the office of cannabis, we didn't really know what the hell we would need and now we know what we need and
that generously the department to give back $45,000 to the general fund, i think, helps to mitigate that situation. and then so the 14-b and then the 1823 senior analyst, i'm finding that is not general funds. i think the manager from 2:00 to 5:00 is a gem myself. the .77 i think makes sense, of course. and then ongoing it would be one full f.t.e., is that correct? yes. and so i think this is -- we're in that on these positions. i just think that this manager position is a hard one because it is such a high-level position and it's so much money. but, again, remind me. this particular position is not
general fund funded. is that correct? >> that's correct. >> ok. >> madame chair? >> yes? >> supervisor, i just wanted to clarify one thing if i could on the 1822 administrative analyst. we agree with you that the position is needed. what we're pointing out is that they have three other vacant 1822s. so, we're seeing fill one of those or all of them and delete this one. and i just wanted to clarify that to you. >> oh. thank you. so, build the other 1822s. >> i believe that's why the city administrator first stated she -- she would agree and then she said it's a policy decision for the board. >> because you can absorb this new position into one of the vacant 1822s, is that correct? >> that is correct. >> ok. this is in addition to 1822 on top of the three that are vacant. ok. got it. yeah, actually that kind of makes sense. thanks. >> any other questions or
clarifications needed? i'm going to try to put all of this into a motion. ok. this is my first attempt. we're going to accept the b.l.a. recommendations, general fund recommendations that are totaling $192,336. of which is $146,154 one time and accept that in fiscal year 1920 and then accept the recommended ongoing reductions of $45996. what r we on the same page with that, colleagues? now this is -- i'm going to move on. now i'm going to go into the general fund recommendations. excuse me, nongeneral fund recommendations. i'm going to come back to the discussion is of manager two to a manager five increase. this is for the permanent case
managerment i'm going to come back to that one. i'm going to make part of this motion is also going to be to accept the deletion of the -- request for an additional 1822. and they fill this request for chapter 14-b space to be filled with some of the vacant -- the two other vacant 1822s that exist in the department. going to make a motion that the city attorney -- the city administrator is in agreement -- or has agreed to accept the general fund operating attrition cut of $45,000. and also the -- the -- the city
administrator is also accepting that the -- that the proposed reserve funds for the hall of justice exit including $5.5 million in 7.9 in fiscal year 1819 and 7.89 in fiscal year 2020. ben, are you following all of this? you might be? ok. i think we need to have a discussion on the two requests for the upward substitution. the first one is for a -- currently 0823. the request has been made for us to deny -- excuse me. the request has been made for us to deny the budget legislative analyst recommendation. from a 0923 to a 0932.
so, that is the manager two position to a manager four position. and the other thing is we've been asked to the city administrator is asking us to accept upward legislation to manager two to manager five. however, they have accepted a delay in hiring to a .86 f.t.e. >> .77. >> excuse me. you're right. .77. .77. mr. rosenfeld? >> if i could briefly summarize to make sure i understand and we have our notes correct. i believe, and the department is agreing to accept the budget and legislative analyst reserve recommendations. >> yes. >> you have already accepted all of the general fund reductions at the previous
meeting for the city administrator. additionally for the department of real estate, we -- the motion would delay the timing of the 0933 position to .77 f.t.e. in the department of -- in the cannabis office, it would permit the 1823 substitution. however, it would offset it with a comparable general fund attrition adjustment to pay for it. i understand the committee would be accepting the proposed deletion of an 1822 and risk management. and then lastly you would be rejecting the policy recommendation regarding the 09322 position for transgender advocacy. >> you said rejecting? is that what you said? >> that's what i understood. >> that is what i said. so, that is -- that is exactly what i said. and there are two points on that that i'm open to talking about.
and that is the upward substitution. so, the director of the also transjenlz easier initiatives currently is at a management level two and wants to go -- the request is for it to go to a four. i'm flexible on that, colleagues. although where i'm uncomfortable is that it's a 44% increase and we established last week that there are increases that are generally accepted but they're usually around 15%. the other upward substitution is approximately a difference in $30,000, which is i think -- was it $66 -- what was the percent increase from a manager two to manager five? this is for the permitting -- permit center manager. as they get that answer, i want to give it to the city administrator.
>> again, the office of transgender initiatives, it was rerecommended hiring at 0932. this is another one where the budgets and legislative analyst says you should hire as a 0932. we did not substitute. >> i see. thank you for correcting me. thank you. but that increase is still 44%. is that incorrect, ken? please correct me if i'm wrong. >> if we are talking about the two position classifications that are listed, 0933 and the position we're substituting are at the same salary scale, maybe within $10 of each other. and there is a difference between what the b.l.a. is -- wants to classify in the position versus what the department is requesting with d.h.r.'s classified position. >> ok. i see the b.l.a. please. >> sorry. i know they're discussing a lot of different changes here. for cannabis, we had -- >> no. no.
i want you to -- for the part of the conversation focus on the office of transgender initiatives. they get one office at a time. >> yes. so from the position that the substitution that is being proposed is about a 2% increase. >> 2%. ok. >> the difference between what we're recommending is larger. >> ok. so let me explain something. i've done a little more homework on this particular office and i was unfamiliar last week and i appreciate naomi kelly for coming to talk me through this. we have a series of transgender individual policies. that are kind of out there in aggregate. this role would kind of pull all of the different city functions and look at the issues facing the transgendered community through -- kind of through one lens. it would be -- this person
would be managing the transgender policies that the city has put forward as wells as helping shape the national conversation and will put us on the -- on the radar in terms of highway prao file vizability and i think that we as a city should embrace that. so, i'm going to recommend that we not accept the b.l.a.'s recommendations when it comes to the director of the office of the transgender initiative. and that we actually support what the city administrators has come to us and is requesting. so i want to just share that a little bit more context around that, this particular position. i think it speaks to our san francisco values. it is going to help ensure that city employment opportunities are available to all persons, regardless -- without regard to the >> jennifer: identity. -- general gender identity.
>> i want to concur with you on that. and i'm fully supportive of having this as a manager four position. i actually trust the process they went through to decide that this is the position that they need for this office and i want to be supportive in that regard. thanks. >> all right. this is conversation that's all happening under the context of a motion. ok? there is one more item i think we need to address and that is and that is the management five position and this is for the permit center manager. i think that is the only outstanding issue. >> i had understood the committee's -- where you are going on that to be -- accept the upward substitution but delay the hiring to later in the year to the .77 f.t.e. >> that is correct.
i want to make sure that people are comfortable with that. nongeneral fund. ok. that's it. that is the position. -- motion. please don't makes me repeat that. [laughter] i want to give -- before we finish our deliberation, i want to give the city administrator and any member of her team an opportunity to -- >> just thank you. i know this was painful because we have so many different positions, but we dime a process if this is the motion that we can accept and definitely live with that. >> the position has changed and supervisor sheet -- sheehy is with us and i think we can take that without objection. thank you. ok. ladies and gentlemen, let's
take a 20-minute break just to use the bathroom break. we will resume -- let's make it 25 minutes and resume at 12:30. thank you. . >> supervisor cohen: good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. i want to welcome you back. it's 1:02. we are back in session. we're going to finish our hearings. we are going to hear from chief scott and the police department, and after we hear this presentation, we are going to take public comment on items 1 and 2, and we will -- we will -- i will make a motion to continue items 1 and 2 to wednesday, june 27. after public comment, we will hear from kelly kirkpatrick on the rebalancing plan, and i will offer some brief remarks on the proposed spending plan that is now public.