this point, i ask your support. supervisor campos: colleagues, do we have a motion? is there a second? colleagues, any comments? supervisor avalos: i have more of a question for the controller. one of the issues with this legislation was that we could reduce the threshold for overtime from 30 to 20, and we would not see any material difference in the overall over time usage in the city and county of san francisco. i wonder if the amendments we have today change that in any way. we are still going to see pretty much the same amount of overtime across the board from our different apartments. >> ben rosenfield, controller. my expectation would be this

legislation like the legislation proposed several years ago and adopted by the board, rather than serve to reduce overall over time expenditure levels -- it will serve to spread it over a larger base of employees. you will see fewer employees with very high overtime use balances. i would not expect it to dramatically change the overall level of overtime expenditure, though. >> i just want to get a clear acknowledgement about the value of this ordinance. are we looking at the goal of overall reducing overtime in the city, or are we looking at the goal of reducing overtime for certain individuals who have a high use of overtime? and explain why is that important? supervisor chiu: from my perspective, the thrust of the legislation is to address both of those aspects. as i mentioned earlier, the fact that by half way of this year in the first half of this fiscal year, we have had 74 employees

that have worked over 600 hours, and five employees had worked close to 900 hours, roughly 80- hour work weeks for these employees, there has been in some of these departments a little bit of a culture of overtime usage as well as potential safety and work quality issues, and that is part of what we wanted to address. initially, i have proposed reducing the exemption cap from 30% to 20% as a result of the meetings we have had an extensive discussions with labor where we work through all these issues. we have agreed that a 25% mock would be the more appropriately to go to head in the right direction, and we will keep monitoring this to establish exactly where this goes. in part, i was willing to make that concession out of respect for the fact that right now, we do have significant work that needs to be done at a time when budget shortages, but at the same time, we all know that all

of us, i think, are trying to get a better handle on how to better manage overtime, and it is my hope we will be able to reduce overtime somewhat as well as ensure that we do not have a handful of individuals working an intense amount of overtime. >> someone who reaches that 25% threshold under this new legislation, to exceed that amount, would have to get a waiver? >> -- supervisor chiu: that is correct. one of the things that has been misunderstood about the legislation was this is not a ban on overtime over 25% or over 30 percent and you what this says is if an apartment house was called in the legislation a critical staffing shortage, they can approach the head of department of human resources and request an exemption as has been the regular practice. the department of human resources has routinely granted exemptions, but with some

oversight and reporting and monitoring of this so we know how often this is happening. supervisor avalos: what do you see the difference in your bureaucracy and administrative burden in monitoring and providing waivers for people seeking them? i assume we will see more people hitting the cap, even if we lower it. >> human resources director. we do anticipate an increase of requests for exemption, and we will devote more resources to evaluating. we will evaluate those as carefully as we have. it is true we have routinely granted them, but we have not made them easy to obtain. there are also a small number of employees who kind of squeak through without an exemption where they come in above the

cap, and we have worked directly with those departments to identify why it has happened and try and eliminate the practice. supervisor avalos: just wonder what kind of staff time to devote to providing waivers. do you see that increasing? does that take away from productivity? >> i would say that we are -- our classification and compensation unit is the one the works on that. they bring it to me. it is not a large bird now. it looks at the number of employees who are over 25% as opposed to 30% was on the order of 3000. if we assume assumptions -- exemptions for those groups, i would anticipate an increase that we could likely have -- handle with current staff, but it would take more time. supervisor campos: colleagues, and the other questions? we have a motion before us. can we take the motion to amend without it submitted without objection? motion passes. do we need a roll call?

supervisor avalos: i think we need a roll call. supervisor chu: just a quick comment. i appreciate the points that supervisor avalos brought up. we intend similar points at the budget committee as well. one of the things that we really made clear before we took the vote is that with the previous version, before the amendments that were made, it was proposing with the legislation proposed to go from 30% to 20%. the thought that i always had was this is not necessarily a tool that will reduce overtime across the city overall. we know there are much more structural changes that need to occur before that occurs a much more close watching a different apartments before that occurs, but it might be a measure that spreads over time. i agree there will be administrative burden associated with it, but of that, i think

the one thing that is of value in terms of the legislation, in terms of the recent amendments that was not present before in the committee is the components that set to bring in the mta into the fold. as we have seen in many of the overtime reports, most of the over how we have seen has been from the mta department. we generally do not as much oversight. they did not have as much oversight in terms of granting waivers, but to the extent this could help move the process forward, i think it could be helpful for the organization. though i am is skeptical this is really going to reduce overtime in the city overall, i think one component, which is the mta component, could be helpful. supervisor avalos: i could see wanting to do something about curbing overtime, but i think it is a very blunt way of doing it. it is more gimmicky than anything, and i would be voting against it. supervisor campos: on item five, can we have a roll call?

>> on item five, as amended. elsbernd aye. farrell aye. kim aye. mar aye. mirkarimi aye. wiener aye. avalos no. campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. cohen aye. there are 10 ayes. one no. supervisor chiu: the ordinance passes on first reading. >> item 6, ordinance ordering the vacation of a portion of the public right of way located on cayuga avenue, approving the jurisdictional transfer from the department of public works for the immigration of our department approving the jurisdictional transformation a man and avnet and a portion upper cayuga. elsbernd aye. farrell aye. kim aye. mar aye. mirkarimi aye. wiener aywe.

avalos aye. campos aye. chiu aye. chu aye. o aye. -- cohen aye. there are 11 aye. item seven, ordinance retroactively approving an agreement with nonstop music library to license the use of a music library and waiving certain requirements of the administrative code with respect to the license agreement. supervisor chiu: can we take the same house, call? the ordinance is passed on first reading. items eight through 11. >> it is bordered and providing revenue of levying taxes for city and county purposes of establishing a pass-through rate for residential tenants pursuant to chapter 37 of the administrative code for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012. nine is an ordered as providing revenue and levying property taxes for the community college district purposes for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012. item 10 is the ordinance

providing revenue and levying property taxes for the sanford cisco unified district purposes for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012. item 11 is an ordinance providing revenue and levying property taxes for sanford cisco bay area rapid transit district purposes for fiscal year ending june 30, 2012. supervisor chiu: these ordinances are passed on the first three. items 12 and 13. >> item 12 is an ordinance amending the annual salary ordinance for fiscal year 2011- 2012 to reflect the addition of 31 positions in various job losses for assembly bill 19, the public safety realignment. item 13 is the ordinance appropriate and approximately $5.7 million of assembly bill 19 public safety realignment revenue to support related expenditures by adult probation, the district attorney, public defender, and share for fiscal year 20 year -- fiscal year 2011-2012. supervisor chiu: can we take these items and house, call? starr, supervisor mirkarimi --

sorry, supervisor mirkarimi. supervisor mirkarimi: this is the final piece for our budget to begin our realignment plan. we had a very thorough hearing in budget committee last week. this is part of a culmination of eight months of hearings that we have had in public safety, several related to public safety. now, we have a more exact idea of what the cost is going to be to the city. the very final piece of legislation is going to be vetted in public safety this thursday that makes it official that adult probation is on point, should this be approved by the board the following week once it gets out of committee, will be on point, than in concert with the sheriff's the part to be able to receive approximately 700 inmates that are coming from the state. san francisco is on the eve of this program being implemented. it is literally within three

weeks. every county in the state of california i think is in the position of trying to brace themselves for what the realignment plan is. we had, i thought, a very robust reentry council meeting this morning over the state building and have to say that we concluded the meeting with this one, sort of, recognition that san francisco is far ahead of the game than many other districts in california. talking to many other peers of hours, do you may be by design or by default, i think we were fortunate to create the council long before we knew there was a governor jerry brown or that there would be state prison realignment back to san francisco. attendees but the pieces in place so that the criminal justice partners would be able to come to gather and develop and scope of plan that is now before us.

many other counties do not have reentry councils. many of them operate under what would be considered somewhat a very obsolete process in being able to help manage a jail population and additional jail population, especially for count is not just getting hundreds but thousands of prisoners returning back to their respective counties. this but san francisco on the edge of its seat, both in criminal justice, rehabilitation reentry and in public safety. it is really the first time san francisco has been able to have more of a concentric circle of who those municipal stakeholders are from the police apartment to the district attorney, public defender, adult and juvenile probation, sheriff's department, the freed upper cbo's, nonprofits that deal with -- the fleet of cbo's and others who sit at the reentry consul.

san francisco looks very prepared on paper. in the budget that we are expecting to really operate this program by, for the upcoming year, is approximately between $13 million or $15 million. we are not getting all the funds we should be getting. as the question we posed earlier to mayor lee, the portion we have to then supply is approximately $5 million or $6 million. that is going to have to come from somewhere, especially if there is an added population of prisoners that we are not expecting. there is one overriding concern we will have to monitor, and that is that what 12 and 13 us before us today is we are adding 31 new positions, appropriately so and legitimately so in the combination of adult probation who is going to get the substance of those positions and then public defender and district attorney. what our hope is that for those

positions, that all the money is not so staff heavy that it is not getting to direct services. it is direct services on the ground that we have to make sure that realignment is going to have to touch the lives of the men and women who are coming back through the system, through the state system, through the jail system hoping that we will be able to impede and encourage or discourage them from leading a bp life of crime -- repeat life of crime. i see that she's still is here. i think that this is just, you know, a simple sort of lesson of what has been well prep for over a good portion of this year. realignment starts in three weeks. colleagues, if you have any questions, the chief is here, the va is here, and some of the criminal justice partners are here. >> thanks. are these employees going to be

calpers employees or spur's employees? or is it and mix? like the adult probation folks will be calpers? >> it is a mix, but the majority of the folks in front of you would be calpers. supervisor chiu: any additional discussion? can we take these items same house, call? without objection, these ordinances are passed on the first reading. >> item 14, and in the resolution of the contracts between in the amount of approximately $419 million. >> same house, same call. the resolution is adopted. >> the 27th amendment to the waterfront between the treasure island development authority, to extend the term.

item 16, approving the seventh amendment for the development of the authority of the u.s. navy. in 17 with the cooperative modification, the resolution approving the treasure island event, with the treasure island development authority. item 19 is a resolution approving the 35th amendment with the lease between the treasure island development authority and the u.s. navy. this is extending the term. >> same house, same call? these resolutions are adopted. >> the resolution approving the public safety realignment plan. >> same house, same call?

>> the resolution approving the execution and delivery, not to exceed 100 million with the refunding certificates of participation, for the refunding bonds by the redevelopment agency. >> this resolution is adopted. item 23? >> the airport commission to extend funding from they transportation security administration from the airport team program. >> the same house, same call? we call items number 24 through 28? >> this is implementing amendment no. 5 to the memorandum of understanding between the city and the firefighters local by extending the terms to june 30, 2015. and this is implementing the amendment number between the

city and the police officers association. extending the terms to june 30, 2015. an ordinance adopted amendment no. 4 between the city and municipal executives association by extending the terms to june 30, 2015. implementing no. 4 to the 2013 -- by extending the terms of this to june 30, 2015 and the ordinance adopting no. 4 to the 2007 between the city and its pole executives. and extending this to june 30, 2015. >> and is there any discussion? supervisor of the los? >> a question for the city attorney.

i recall in the first proposition -- this had to be approved prior to the budget being finalized, and the facts that these are amendments, that requirement is not necessary? >> this is been deferred to the project. >> human-resources director -- the 2000 legislation did remove the june 30 deadline for the concession agreement so this particular amendment is not subject to the deadline, the may 15 deadline for public safety and this contract. >> thank you. >> is there any further discussion?

do we need to do a roll-call vote? we will take these items, the same house, same call? these ordinances are passed in the first reading. item 29. >> this is a man into the 2013 mou, extending this -- >> without objection -- she will be excused, and if we could take a roll-call vote on item 29. >> mar, eye. mirkarimi, aye. weiner, aye. avalos, aye. campos, aye. chu, aye. cohen? cohen, aye. 10 ayes.

>> the ordinance is passed on the first meeting pick -- first reading. but us go to the special order. >> items 30 and 31 comprised the board of supervisors pursuant to a motion approved on july 19. a public hearing of those objecting to the proposed resolution with a property based community benefit district, item 31 well up and and rename this community district as the film more community benefit district. >> this is a public hearing that was continued from july 26 to today, and i understand with murder ramey, he would like to continue to keep the public hearing open and will ask if he has any comments that he would

like to make. >> this is a motion for another continuance but realizing that the hearing should at least allow for anyone who would like to give them put, i have sent a message to the office of economic workforce development, which has been leading the charge on the renewal of these throughout the city. i am not quite there and i know others have concerns about this renewal, so until those points of concern are satisfied, i believe we should continue this to october 8. >> if there is anyone here wishing to speak on this item, we will open public comment but this will also be continued to the 18th of october. the public will have additional times to make comments.

to any members of the public wish to speak about this plan? each member of the public will have two minutes for comments. please step up. >> i am susan king, and i run the foundation program. the community benefit districts -- >> would you like to start over again? >> i run the sunday streets program. i wanted to speak on behalf of the important role that they play in supporting sunday streets. this is an effort that is presented by the fda but the organization has done by livable

city. we don't have a lot of resources. in the various places we visit -- this has provided much-needed support in terms of programming, outreach and marketing and other things we would have to go without or pay for. fillmore has been a great partner, and i don't know if you were able to make it out last weekend on september 11, but there was a lot of activity in all the neighborhoods, and most robustly in the film more and meghan mitchell worked very diligently to marshal fantastic music and great events, fun things for the whole family, helping with programming and marketing, letting the neighborhood know about changes

to parking and traffic, and including sunday streets as part of the international artists week. in closing, this is an important institution and meghan worked very hard to support the merchants that bring life to this corridor. i really wanted to go on record by saying that sunday streets would not have been as successful without the staff. >> other members of the public? >> supervisors, i am as washington. i was one of the persons at the inception of this in our community. the western admission is like no other part of the san francisco area.

where redevelopment agencies have created this. they can flaunt what they had, to help them, to let the community know. this was not for the community and we had no part in this. in a minute and 20 seconds -- you will delay this section again. but the community is being held hostage right now, because they don't care about the community. we are built up for the property owners and the taxpayers. they have been trying to change the name from communities of this is not a problem. i am here to say that they are corrupt. one thing for certain. there needs to be an internal

investigation on the cbd. the latest document that was passed around, this was on june 11. you cannot say for two minutes, no bookkeeping records and writing checks when they want to. i know that you have this copy. so why are you not investigating any of this stuff? there needs to be an investigation because they are corrupt along with a lot of other things. they are corrupt. when it finally comes down to, you will not approve of this. >> i watched my son die in the

western addition. i am glad that this will be a continuation, because this is the first time we're hearing of this and the name change. i did not think enough people really know what this entails. i am happy that this will be continued and i will investigate more about this, because the true people in my community are not being informed about what is really going on. thank you. >> supervisors? i did read the letter from the secretary, and it was very disappointing to see the transparency over the years -- somehow, we are not getting the i