feeder agreement payment to the actual number of transfer trips, which more accurately reflect mta's cost to provide feeder services. to illustrate this in a striking manner in the our report on page 5, as shown on page 3, idealizing the 1987 methodology for 2009, 2010, it would have been $15,135,790, $12 million or 473.1% more than the $2.6 million amount that you are now being asked to approve using the sales tax methodology. it is a very significant difference by that change in

methodology, which has never been documented. on page 6 of our report, the actual number, the mta now says that they will go back can renegotiate this agreement methodology to provide a clear nexus between the actual number of transfer trips between bart and muni, therefore requiring fewer payments for 10-11 and 11-12. as you know, this agreement before you is 49-10. the mta indicates that there might be a retroactive payment for 9-10 if you approve this. of course, that is totally contingent upon board agreeing to such a retroactive -- bart

agreeing to such a retroactive payment. recognizing that they need this $2 million to balance the budget. that is the representation. given the items i have mentioned, we consider that approval of the vote -- resolution. supervisor chu: in terms of the fast as reimbursement agreement, can you give us an update on how that is going? >> since you asked us to go back and renegotiate, we have had discussions where we think we have reached favorable terms. but we will abide by the direction of the board to hold that agreement and bring it back at the same time. i think that that makes a lot of sense for the sector as well.

>> you do not perceive any difficulty with the fast pass agreement? >> i think that that would make sense from our perspective, so we can look at both services together. supervisor chu: with regards to a new methodology, i would agree that we need to negotiate a methodology that really does take a look at the actual level of service we are providing and a more clear reasoning for charging what we charge. i would be in agreement with that. have we begun conversations about that possibility? >> absolutely, supervisor. that peace is not negotiable from our perspective. supervisor kim: i just wanted to support the president's amendment to the theater agreement resolution. i am disappointed that this current agreement does not base

costs on writer ships, but i do think it is important to move forward. i am hopeful that with this change, with this amendment resolution we will come back and renegotiate fast pass reimbursement agreements. i wanted to reiterate that we would like to see a nexus more than the sales tax increase in the next agreement that comes before the board. >> thank you, a supervisor. supervisor chu: are there any members of the public that would like to speak on item number four? seeing no one, public comment is closed. we have a motion to except a couple of amendments. would you read those into the record? supervisor chiu: two additional

resolve clauses at the end of the resolution. the first states that the board of supervisors presents the renegotiated fast fast agreement with bart and the theater agreements at the same time. further resolving that the board of supervisors urges renegotiation of the methodology for the fiscal year 2011 and fiscal year 2012 agreements to provide a clear nexus between the actual number of transfer trips and the related feeder agreement payment. supervisor chu: we have a second of that motion. can we take those without objection malaprop a question to the city attorney, these are not substantive steps ups on the underwriting item, do we have a motion to send this forward as amended? without objection. thank you.

item number six, please. >> item #6. ordinance amending the san francisco administrative code, section 18.13.1 to limit the overtime worked in any fiscal year by any employee to 20% of regularly scheduled hours and requiring monthly written reports regarding critical staffing shortages. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor chiu: thank you, colleagues. this legislation handles aspect of a problem that we have known about for years, the city's overtime. we know that over time is complex and solutions to these issues are no different. there need to be a number of angles at which we tackle these problems. one of the ways to tackle overtime is addressing the fact that employees do not need to get an exemption from the department of human resources as long as they work hours that do not exceed 30% of their regularly scheduled hours.

624 hours of regular overtime for full-time employees. 80 hour work week for four hours of the year. not only do i think this contributes to overtime usage, there are safety issues that could be severely impacted. a few months ago we did a review of the city's over time. in the controller's report they found that 74 employees have been granted exemptions. meaning that they had worked over 624 hours of overtime by january 7, which was only half of the fiscal year. five of them had worked over 900 hours of overtime by that point. including one station agent who had logged over 1000 hours during the firsthalf of the fiscal year, an average of 39 hours of overtime per week. i think that this is inappropriate and potentially

dangerous. if this agent needed to react to safety cuts. at this time the current situation contributes the impression that a small pool of city workers can use the system with regards to overtime. the legislation before you is quite simple. reducing the allowable percentage from 30% to 20% before the exemption is permitted by the department of human resources. it simply says that once you hit 20% over the course of a year, at that time there needs to be an exemption. it also requires that as an exemption is granted, the written explanation be provided to exemplify and justified the exemption. i want to invite michael callahan from department of human resources, who has a presentation on this topic. >> thank you.

i would like to talk a bit about the history first, then talk about what we have done and make a few comments on what we think the impact of this change may be. in 2008 the maximum permissible overtime ordinance had been amended passed maximum overtime for additional hours, but there was no enforcement. it was largely ignored citywide. there was none of the transparency of reporting to the board. additionally it was so widely viewed as unachievable that the department simply ignored it. in reside -- revising the ordinance, we moved to a higher number, the 30% that you now see. i think that that combination has resulted in significant

improvements. since 2008, 2009 and maximum permissible overtime was amended, interesting be if you look at the study for certain periods of the year, excluding mta and public safety initially , overtime hours will be wiped off. additionally the number of employees working over 30% drop from 91 to 23 this year. the number of employees working 1000 over five hours went from 10 to zero. we did not have an opportunity to create a report on all of the items. we put them in one document for you and sent them out so that everyone would have it. >> to be clear, the numbers that you gave, you said that since the time it was implemented with more reporting, the total

overtime for fell by half for non-public safety? >> yes. i would make a note that the exemption process is results will for the exemption in the overtime capped. we have granted exemptions to fire because of their short staffing. there are 1400 employees and 138 exceeded the counter in fire over the last year. puc leads the limited exemption in 18 people with only one employee for homicide investigator. only 21 exceeded the overtime capped in the last year. we're working with them to get it down close to zero. we have it one part storekeeper who has been exempted.

it is not the case that -- there are some circumstances in which employees have gone over without the exemption. those may be some of the ones that you cited. it is not so many that there are a handful. we would attribute the big move in 2008 to the culture of overtime. there are people that run in overtime. it is built into their assignments effectively. a lot of work has been done to defeat that. whether we are moving to 20%, we will not know until we do it. we could take a look at the number of people who -- what the impact would be for 10-11 for the same group. if we move from 30% to 20%, for this study.

, july to march, we have 63 people at over 20%, where it was 23% over 30%. additional people in that group will be managing. with overtime perhaps you could get more redistribution. it does not necessarily mean that there is less overtime work. other people will work it, possibly addressing the safety concerns the to raise. i want to also bring to the committee's attention -- i do not know that there is an answer for it, but once we grant an exemption for specific reasons, we do not have the capability or staffing to identify why. once we have granted exemptions,

we are not able to track the services under which they get them. we can say that she could have an exemption, not if you are the only person i can do the work, and if we do not allow you to work it, people will be forced to take mandatory overtime. systems and staffing do not allow us to find out periods before it is a bit of a gamble in that respect. supervisor chu: with regards to the change, we saw a significant movement in overtime from 2008 until now. the difference, the previous requirement, that was in the reverse direction. we did not make it more

restrictive. we actually increased the number of overtime hours could work -- that people could work. it seems that the reporting requirement and how personally getting exemptions for improving being onerous, people not wanting to have to go through that, can you explain that? >> my understanding -- i was not here when that was implemented, was that it was widely deemed to be unachievable. it was basically ignored. it may well be that the biggest change was not only a tap with someone looking at it, but you have to do something about it and he would perhaps be publicly embarrassed if you did not deal with it. strong incentives for people to address over time. it became a real focus. we did not have the kind of study where we could implement it in stages.

at 16% it would have been more difficult to manage. because it would be such a huge change for people. >> even 30% produced a restriction. supervisor chu: at the current proposal it is to drop the level from 30% to 20%, getting closer to that 16% level. when we have that level it was widely regarded as unachievable and there was no enforcement. going from 30% to 20%, do you foresee any problems with it now being implemented will? -- implementable? is there a magic number? >> i do not think there is a magic number. we are concerned about being judicious in granting those. we do get a lot of pressure from apartments that need to get the

work done. in areas like fire, where you have a 24/7 requirement for staffing, regardless of the cap they probably will have to give an exemption. that might be true for certain public health classifications because of the custodial care requirements. i would hope that it continues to erode the use of overtime. i would venture that this has largely been done through reporting we can learn from what we did before. >> you spoke about who is in the incremental. taking a snapshot look at this and seeing how many people are exceeding the 20% level now, you said that there were individuals exceeding it. do you know the categories they

were in? who would be captured in the additional change? >> the additional -- i see, who beat pickup at the 20% level, emergency communication, dispatchers, the district attorney's office, the court, recreation, and the airport. yes. so, our minister has just advised me that when they look at the full year, it is about four times the amount. 60 people at the 30% level to 238. looking backwards. it might be that they did not have to work that much overtime. presumably the downward pressure of a reduced caps will change

that. but i believe there are more people working overtime. i want to make sure that however it is implemented, we do not wind up with something that needs to be ignored as we have in the past. supervisor chu: when we talk about folks who have a number of exemptions that have been issued above 30% at the moment, you said it was 54 the year? >> that was the number of people over the cap. there are a handful that did not get an exemption. at the sheriff's department particularly, we do not have real time information of how much overtime has been worked. if he works the next shift, will he be over? people sign up for it.

it is very hard to manage that. with better systems we will have a better ability to track. supervisor chu: be anticipation of a 20% cap, will people be staying at the same behavior? we would expect it to go over 200? >> yes. however, i would hope that there would be some downward pressure by the new cap. i am certain that there will be more exemptions. supervisor chu: i do not remember if the budget office or the controller can speak this, but major budget offices tend to be the mta and public safety, right? >> supervisors, the largest over

time apartment in the city is the mta, accounting for approximately half of the overtime spending in the city. after that the largest, the top five or fire, police, public health, and the sheriff. five departments that account for approximately 85% of overtime spending in the city. supervisor chu: with regards to the mta, this legislation would not necessarily the relevant to the mta? -- not necessarily be relevant to the mta, correct? >> they demanded certain resources, including overtime, whereas the human resources director is responsible for footing the exemptions on the non-mca directors. -- non-mta directors. supervisor mirkarimisupervisor o

that a bit, mta. >> we are required to report to the controller on the difference [unintelligible] word to go through. supervisor chu: the ordinance applies that it is a matter of enforcement? >> for the mta we have several classes that are exempt where station agents are given exemption as a class. looking at that level, we have

35 individuals that beat that level. the majority of them are operators or electrical workers. we are very concerned by the safety implications of that much overtime. unfortunately, the issue has been presented under a myriad of reasons. because the service modeled presents vacancy issues and unlike safety staff, the attrition levels of operators, pcr's, those kinds of positions are city departments that we

see. this note -- historical overtime has been in low standing. if we were to move from 30% to 20%, we would probably see four times the number. about 120, 130 individuals on that list. the overtime budget is large. supervisor chu: it sounds similar to the chief's comments. if we were to implement this proposal, you would not necessarily expect to see an immediate reduction in overtime spending. you might see more people that would be exempted or more people that would be able -- that would be a waiver or distribution? >> yes.

supervisor chiu: thank you, madame chair. i want to thank the staff on the council for the answers to these questions. have you seen any anecdotal evidence of excessive overtime leading to safety issues? as i said earlier today, when we have been the station agents that have logged literally close to 39 extra hours every week for the entire first half of the fiscal year, that seems to be pretty significant. >> we looked, i know, a couple of years ago we did searches for studies on productivity and over time. there were general statements that basically declining productivity after a certain number of hours, we do not have any evidence.

i think that it would make sense. it might make sense to consider -- and i would use the term safety sensitive -- there are certain jobs where a drop in productivity is not explained and you just have to have someone there. an example might be working overtime delivering food. if the person is a little late for the person forgets milk, they can go back and get it. different from someone driving a large vehicle with many passengers. it might make sense to consider the people operating things like power tools, driving vehicles, i would view them differently from those who are trying to meet a deadline for the state. it would perhaps make sense to

bear down a little bit and look at the kind of work we would be happy to provide a less by classification. -- provide by class less by classification. i certainly agree that for public safety and people involved in transit, if i can be so bold, it makes sense to distribute, even if it is less overtime work, there is better distribution with significant safety benefits. supervisor chiu: i certainly agree with those comments. the three biggest users of overtime are the mta, transit, police department and fire, public safety. it seems to me that that should be a consideration. is it job classifications that

will have much more significant impacts if something would go wrong? i know that we heard a presentation from one of your colleagues. we heard loud and clear that the mta has a history of really not being able to get a good hold of overtime. i think that we know what the explanations have been for the past, but i have not gotten a clear sense of what the path is going forward in terms of putting a cap on these things. >> we are aware of the concerns raised by the committee members. you are correct. over time as recorded was a black box to drive over time. the service model and the level of vacancies available, what we are attempting to do pick is --

we recognize that the city business model will have to be amenable. it is good business sense to use overtime as a tool. we are not 24/7, quite, but we are fairly significant. we are attempting to break out of that blockbuster overtime and determine the appropriate level for a system like ours. we agree that you could do a better job with overtime. we have not had significant levels of reporting with overtime. forcing overtime by facility, which we have never had before, drilling down into these issues, how much overtime is built into the schedules? with a new agreement in