>> good morning, ladies and gentlemen, i want to welcome to you committee. i'm the chairwoman and to my right is sandy fewer and to my left is supervisor catherine stefani. i want to recognize our friends at sfgovtv.

tom and lawrence. thank you for your assistance and i want to recognize the clerk of our board is ms. linda wong. are there any announcements? >> yes, please silence all cellphones and electronic devices and copies of documents to be included should be submitted to the clerk and items will be on the march 24th supervisor agenda unless otherwise stated. >> excellent, thank you for the announcements, let's begin. let's start with item 1. >> item 1 resolution authorizing the department of homelessness and support of housing to a 54 expand grant in the amount of 150,000 from the california department of housing and community development boarding no place like home 2017 technical assistance grants. >> great. this will allow the department of homelessness to apply and accept and expand $150,000 grant for technical assistance. we've got emily cohen with us this morning from the department of homelessness and support of

housing. please, the floor is yours. good morning, emily. >> good morning, supervisors. thank you. i'm having a little technical difficulty with the slides. when it unfreezes, you will see -- the department of homelessness and support housing is a supplying for technical assistance grant in the amount of $150,000. from the no place like home program from the california department of housing and community development. this is part of a 2 billion-dollar program that will provide funds for development of supportive housing for people in need of mental health services and who are experiencing homelessness. this is the bond -- the bond is repaid with funding from the mental health services act.

the grant for tech -- it will help us assess the population, develop our service packet, plan for the integration of the health homes program and plan for coordinated entry implementation. specifically for people experiencing homelessness with severe mental illnesses. when the nofa is released for the full no place like home program, we're estimating it could bring up to $96 million for san francisco, that's $10 million in over the counter funding and up to $86 million in large county allocations. these funds are for the acquisition design, construction, rehab or preservation of housing for people with mental illnesses and who are homeless in san francisco. the on going program will be a collaboration between h.s.h. mayor's office of housing and community development and the department of public-health. i'm happy to answer any questions about the a.n.e. >> thank you, very much.

i don't think there's any questions. thank you. we will go to public comment at this time. any member of the public that would like to come and speak on item 1, come on one. seeing none. public comment is closed. may i have a motion. >> stefani. >> i move this item to with positive recommendations. >> we need to send this at the committee report so i'll amend the motion. we'll move this with positive recommendation and send it to the full board and we'll take that without objection. item 2, please. >> resolution authorizing sell public auction certain parcels at tax default at real port. >> item 2 the department has requested a continuance to the call of the chair. we'll take public comment on this. seeing no public comment, thank you, very much. i will make a motion to continue

this to the call of the chair. and we will take that without objection. next item. 3 and 4 together. >> clerk: resolution authorizing the department to accept a grant in the amount of $786,000 from the federal management to purchase thermal imaging cameras and resources for the stress unit. the fire department to accept a grant in the amount of $215,000 from the federal emergency management agency for resources related to the youth fire center prevention and intervention program. >> thank you. so these items that we're going to vote on and hearing on are retroactive except an ex panned grant for thermal imaging cameras. a grant to support the youth fire center prevention program. thank you. >> good morning, mark corso fire department. the first item number 3 is a fiscal year 16 fema grant in the

amount of $786,000 for the purchase of equipment, the purchase of thermal images for all department fire engines and for stress unit resource and our stress unit assist members with mental health issues. that is the first grant. the second grant is a fiscal year 16 fema fire prevention safety grant for the funding for resources in the amount of $215,000 for resources for the department's youth fire center prevention intervention program under our bureau fire prevention. the program identifies, educates, prefers youth at risk for fire-setting behavior. this grant funds one position to be dedicated full time to this program. i'm happy to answer any questions on that. >> thank you, supervisor fewer has a question. >> yes, thank you, very much. how many youth do you actually interact with in this program? >> so it's kind of a joint project. we work closely with police department, district attorney

office and school department. i can get formal stats. we work closely to outreach with schools. >> it's just outreach to identify? what is the impact of the dollars spent? >> for this we had about -- eight years ago we had additional staffing to assist with this program. those were reduced during budget cuts so this will help formulate a new program. there's additional direction coming from the state fire marshal's office about a more formal program. this encompasses additional training for our members as well as additional one-person dedicated specifically to the program. >> i guess what i'm asking is about the program itself. so if you've had this program pm years now what's is the impact of these dollars? >> we help outreach with the schools and work with students to identify at risk. this is our bureau fire identification and they work closely to identify these issues so that obviously, the point of the program is to avoid when

these kids who are at risk may have issues later on in life and set arsons or do things like that. we're able to educate and prevent those issues from coming forward. >> what are some of the indicators that could be fire setters? >> a lot of it is referrals from schools where there are issues they've had where either students have set fires at the schools and they want some additional resources that go beyond the school district from police or fire departments to assist with either counseling or education along those lines. >> are these funds used at all for counseling? >> no, these funds specifically are for the personnel for the fire department personnel. we have various partners that we refer to. but these funds specifically are for one fire department personnel and training. >> i was on the school board for eight years and i have not heard of this program and i have not heard of a collaboration between the fire department and the district attorney and the police

department and the school district around this program. that's why i'm asking questions about the impact of these dollars and how these dollars are dispensed and also what actually kind of service are any of these students getting. >> absolutely. we'll follow-up with your office with additional information. >> thank you, very much. >> thank you. seeing there are no colleagues that have questions, let's go to public comments. public comment on this item, ladies and gentlemen, on item 3 and 4? seeing none, public comments closed. thank you. i'll introduce a motion to approve with a positive recommendation we move to the full board if we can take that without objection. passes. item 5. >> clerk: resolution approving the international terminal duty free between the fs group and the city for a 14-year term following approval. >> we have kathy wide ner from the san francisco international

airport. this is a resolution with a 14-year lease for d.f.s. group to sell duty-free goods in the international terminal in s.f.o. the lease is for $42 million annually and of course it was competitively bid. the floor is yours, thank you. >> good morning, chair cohen, members of the committee. kathy widener with the san francisco international airport. the item before you seeks your approval for a new duty-free lease at the airport with d.f.s. group limited partnership. the proposed lease includes 12 stores that cover approximately 46,000 square feet of retail space at the airport, primarily in the international terminal. has a original term of 14 years with a five year option to extend if needed to accommodate the closure of the airport's two security checkpoint notice international terminal and the creation of one shopping plaza. as part of the request for

proposals process, the airport set a minimum annual guarantee rent amount of $42 million a year and required percentage rent proposals of no less than 30%. d.f.s. group has a rent structure that starts at 45.8%. based on current future-free sales, airport staff estimates the rent associated with the new lease will be $69.6 million in the first full year of operation. that represents a $43.3 million increase to rent to the airport annually. d.f.s. group has partnered with five airport disadvantaged business enterprise program partners. each having a 5% interest for a total of 25%. all five of the firms are local. skyline concessions, j.r. lester and associates, mur i will a chocolate company, bay city concessions and sky view

concessions. the proposed lease is a result for proposals process with d.f.s. group receiving the highest score of the three proposals. the airport did not receive any protests on this r.s.p. process. the budget analyst has reviewed and recommended approval of the new lease but i would like to mention that there was one slight error in the tier's rent structure. on page 3 the second and third tier should say 41.8% of sales between 100 million and $160 million. and 30% of sales over 160 million. i just wanted to point that out. i would be happy to answer questions you may have. >> thank you, very much. i see no questions from my colleagues. i do have speaker cards. i have a couple speaker cards. first i want to call up mark

sullivan and from bianca mallory. if there is any member of the public, come on up. mark sullivan and bianca mallo mallory. >> good morning supervisors. my name is mark sullivan. and i am the managing district or for d.f.s. in north america. and on behalf of d.f.s. and 250 employees, at san francisco airport, i would like to thank the san francisco airport authority, director tero and his team for managing a clear and transparent bid process. as you said, this was a highly competitive bid for all parties and d.f.s. is thrilled our response has been accepted. we sincerely look forward to continuing the partnership with san francisco airport and providing an exceptional retail experience to travellers to and from san francisco and the bay area. we submitted a strong bid based on our understanding of the

market and the future opportunity at san francisco airport. i would like to take a moment to thank the five acdeb local business partners who joined with d.f.s. in this award. we put time, care and energy into finding strong local talent which we can partner and mentor in order to create an exceptional experience at our city airport. finally, i would like to thank the budget and finance committee for considering the airport's recommendation. >> thank you, next speaker, please. >> good morning chair cohen, supervisor fewer and supervisor stefani. i am a local small businesswoman and will be a business partner with d.f.s. at s.f.o. under this contract. this is how a d.b. program should work. enabling a young san francisco

entrepreneur to learn and grow a new business under the wings of a proven successful company at s.f.o. i am excited for this opportunity to show international travellers from around the world a special and diverse duty-free store at s.f.o. and urge you to please approve this contract. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> hi, good morning to you. my name is really beginsburg. i've been at san francisco international airport for 33 years. i'm a local business operators and also an acdbe. it's a wonderful opportunity for those who have been part of the legacy of san francisco international airport. to have continuation and to be able to be a participant with d.f.s. at this phenomenal opportunity, which if we were to try and do this independently we would not be able to. i thank you for your consideration and i look forward

to another 14 years as long as i can, at s.f.o. with this new contract. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning madam chairperson and board of supervisors. my name is april steward. i'm the president of the sky view concessions and i'm celebrating my tenth year in business. i'm so excited to be a member, joint venture partner with d.s.f. it's a full-circle moment for me. i worked for them for a number of years. i know them as a very fine employer. and i always aspire to have my own business and now i have the opportunity to be their partner. i am very excited about it. it was d.f.s. that today me to the acde program. i went ahead and got certified and now here i am today. so grateful for this opportunity. i appreciate your vote of

approval. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning, madam chair and madam supervisors. my name is janby. i've had a long relationship with d.f.s. for over 25 years, it's been my great desire to be a member of the esteemed d.s.f. family. i was invited to join them on this proposal. i've been in the airport concessions business since 1996. i couldn't be more fortunate to be part of this opportunity and how proud i am to be a part of this acdbe team. i look forward to supporting the success with our new venture and i'm grateful for this opportunity. thank you. >> next speaker. >> good morning. my name is manual. i am the owner of skyline

concessions, one of the acdbe partners of the d.f.s. group and i want to show my appreciation for your consideration. this is an incredible opportunity. it's an incredible program the airport runs and just really wanted to stress upon the continuation of small business participation at the airport. thank you so much. >> thank you, very much. seeing there's no other public comment we'll close public comments. thank you. i want to pivot back to the budget legislative analyst to offer their comments on item 5. >> good morning, chair cohen, members of the committee. ms. widener said this is the concession agreement with d.f.s. group was selected through a competitive process. it's for 46,000 feet with the guarantee of $42 million or about $900 per square foot.

there is a minute investment amount of approximately $2,000 per square foot although it could be less than that based on input from the airport review committee. the mag will stay at $42 million a square foot unless percentage rent is more than that. it could increase to 90% of percentage in subsequent years. >> when you say the mag, what is that? >> minimum annual guarantee rent. the base in the first year. it's structured as the greater of percentage rent or the minimum annual rent. the minimum they would get is $42 million. we estimate over the 14-year term of the lease at revenue the airport would be $588 million and we recommend approval. >> all right. thank you, we'll take that recommendation under advisement. any questions for staff? all right. seeing none. let's take a motion to move this to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> we can take that without

objection. thank you. >> all right. item moves forward. could you please call item 6 and 7 together. >> yes. item number 6 ordinance pro pre eighting 900,000 of permanent salary budget and repro pre eighting $900,000 to overtime budget in the police departments operating budget in order to support the department's increased overtime expense for security services at the airport. item number 7, ordinance $13.3 million from permanent salaries, fringe benefit expenses and non personnel services and pro pre eighting $13.3 million so overtime in this sheriff's department, police department and department of emergency management operating budgets in order to support the department's projected increases in overtime in fiscal years 2017-2018. >> thank you, very much. the mayor is the sponsor of this legislation and speaking on his behalf is the budget office director melissa whitehouse. >> thank you chair cohen. melissa whitehouse.

i want to thank the committee for hearing this item today. so these two items are being called together. they're really what we usually refer to as the overtime supplemental. this is usually a pretty procedural manner where in the past the board of supervisor has passed legislation that for a certain department that over spend on overtime even when it's within their existing budget they need to come back to the board for authority to move that money into overtime. this time last year, we introduced this supplemental much later in the year and i believe it was in may. and this committee, along with the budget analyst appropriately pointed out that was too late and didn't really give the committee time to respond and so this year we agreed with that recommendation and worked really hard to make sure that right after the controllers six-month report was issued, that we introduced this supplemental right away. basically exactly matching what that report stated ways needed.

so all the department that's needed a supplemental are before you today. i would say thank you to the budget analyst for working with us to get this item to you today as well. i know it was a more fast timeline than last year. i think it was the right move. so all the departments are here today in the audience, if you have more specific questions on any of the light items but i'll walk you through it at a high level. this supplemental is not spending new general fund dollars. it's moving money from one place to another in every case. so first for the police department, there are two supplementals, one at the airport bureau and this is really to address concerns. the new district or wanted a visible presence for security at the airport. we're going to work with the airport and the police department to adjust the budget next year to better anticipate these needs and make sure that police classes are at the correct level so that the airport is staffed at the level of service that they wish to fund and think it appropriate. the next one for the police

department is entirely related to the north bay fires and the mutual aid that our city provided. then we have overtime supplemental for the sheriff's department. this supplemental is moving money from savings and regular salaries to overtime and this is really, we have seen this in recent years and we're making a lot of progress on getting them to a point where they hopefully next year will not need an overtime supplemental but the department has been working very hard to hire as quickly as possible and also been seek retirements. so they're close to their funded staffing levels and we anticipate next year they will be there. they do need a overtime supplemental this year. for the department of emergency management, this supplemental is really largely related to the fact that we were working very closely with the department actually under mayor lee, to get them to their 90% service standard of answering 9-1-1 calls within 10 seconds. i'm happy to say for the first time in many years, the department is now there. but that didn't necessitate

bringing on additional staff and running more over time than we projected in the budget. again, they're liquidating capital and i.t. projects and it is needing an overtime supplemental. and then lastly, it's not an overtime supplemental but because it was called out in the six month, we thought it was appropriate to also move forward a reappropriation from benefits to salaries for the department of public-health. they are seeing a higher than expected census at the hospital and so they had savings and benefits but they had oaf reginaoveragebecause it was cale six month report as well. that's the high level. the budget analyst is recommending approval and we're in agreement and i'm happy to answer questions or call up departments if the committee would like. thank you. >> i have a couple comments. first of all, thank you for highlighting what we're doing is generally moving money from one

unused area of the department into another. very, very important to highlight. as you know, overtime is a sensitive issue and has been in this city for many years. i also think it's important to highlight the overtime that has been incurred is due to our additional support to the north bay fires. and also, we want to acknowledge the b. l.a. is conducting an audit of the police department staffing and overtime to be complete in that will be presented in may. so i guess my question for you ms. whitehouse and just to clarify that the salaries at s.f. general are for additional per diem workers or for full-time staff? >> my understanding and greg wagner is here but my understanding is that when they have an unexpected bump in census, they bring on more temporary workers, which is why you are seeing the savings and

benefits but overaging and salary. the department isn't sure if it's an on going increase, if it were, it's something we would address in the budget next year. at this point during the year, they're not sure if it's on going or temporary so they felt that when they have large fluctuations and census, temporary is the way to go and that makes sense from an operational perspective. >> what i'm hearing is they're per diem this year and it's determined they will become full-time a staff we'll make the budget allocations for next year. >> correct. >> we always use the overtime supplemental to check on how departments are doing current year, similar to the six-month report. we try really hard to make the budget reflect what is the reality for the departments in the next year. >> does that budgeting strategy create undue stress within the nursing staff or the staffing levels? i'm thinking about ratios in particular? that's also a question that always comes up during the budget cycle? >> i'm going to hand it over to

greg wagner. >> thank you. chair cohen, members of committee. greg wagner chief financial over at the department of public-health. to answer your question, our census at the hospital has been higher this year. each year when we make the budget we make an assumption about what the average census is going to be. >> what is a census? a patient? >> the average number of patients occupying beds at the hospital. >> do you have -- have you been able to identify the reason why the census has increased? >> well, there are a number of reasons and it's never kind of a clear item that you can point to but influenza is one reason and it's something we're seeing at hospitals around the city, not just our own hospital. so there are a number of reasons that contribute to it and as mse of the things that we're watching closely is this bump in

time that's going to go back to levels that we had seen previously or is this a new normal based on just the patterns of hospital utilization in the city. it can be a bunch of things. it can be illness and public-health factors in the city. it can be how many people end up being transported to san francisco general versus other hospitals for care or proximity reasons so i don't have a clear answer. >> what is the benchmark we're using to determine baseline levels for the census? >> sure, so four our budgeted apartment for the hospital and our critical care beds which are the core census measure is 178. our actual census has been running at 200 over the course of the current fiscal year.

and chair cohen, i want to further address and make sure i answered your question but in terms of staffing, the reason that you do see an over expenditure of salaries is because when we have a higher census, we absolutely staff to make sure that we're meeting all of the required ratios and state regulation and in our labor m.o.u.s. so when we have a higher number of beds we staff up to meet those number of beds so it's easier at the hospital but it should not be putting an undue burden on the existing staff. because we are adjusting our staffing to row reflect the higher patient population. >> do you rotate the per diem -- when we talk about staffing, i'm making the assumption we're talking about nurses? is that right or are you staffing in multiple areas? >> it's a combination of things. a lot is nursing but there are also patient care assistance, even environmental services, porters that address the rooms, food service. so any time you have a census

change that is a staffing impact throughout the hospital, but a lot of of this is nursing and we have been for the last two years leading up to the opening of the new san francisco general hospital, been making a major push to hire permanent nursing staff and we've made a lot of progress on that. we've ramped our number of permanent staff. but for a short term fluctuation and census, we don't turn around permanent hires and so some is killed with per diem and temporary staffing. >> you mentioned that the baseline for the census that you use is 178 and we've been operating at least this year, at 200. how often do you budget your assumptions?

annually? >> so we take an annual look at it. we're watching it constantly throughout the year. we take an annual look at it in the budget process. >> let me interject, what was it last year? one year budget assumption and what was the census? >> i don't have the numbers at my finger tips. i can ask if our hospital c.f.o. happens to have them. i can certainly get that to you. i don't have it at my finger tips this year. >> one of the things i'm interested in is tracking the trajectory of the census and what we have budgeted and actually the delta between the census population and if we are consistently under budgeting we should make that correct so that we can be providing the fullest service possible to the patients that are at general. supervisor fewer. >> thank you, very much. i just have one question. you said that you budgeted for 178 and then the numbers is 200. is that the maximum or is there

capacity for more patients? >> there is a little bit more room. we have some beds that are available toll flex up. but we are nearing the physical capacity. >> what is the physical capacity? >> let me clarify that number for you and i will provide what the top end is for you. >> because if we're looking at jumping from one 178 to 200. if for example, you had 220 to capacity, then that would also raise the amount of money that resources that you would need if you had an out burst in the flu or whatever, is that correct? >> absolutely. that's one of the reasons we don't fill every bed to the

physical capacity of the hospital so that there's a little bit of a flex room in the case of an event like influenza or a emergency of some sort that would require us to flex up. >> i'm just trying to get a sense of the range or resources that you might need if you were at full capacity and in comparison to what you had budgeted for. >> thank you for that comment. one of the the things we're in the process as we go through the budget process right now, we've spoken with our commission and we're working with the mayor's office looking at because when we have census over our budgeted amount, we have expenditures over budget, but we also have to a certain extent, revenues over budget because we are billing medical and medicare so one of the things we look at doing in the budget, which i'm sure we'll

talk about it as we get into the departmental budget hearings, is having a pool of dollars backed by revenue that would be on hold, unless we exceed our budgeted census but then it would be there so if we don't go over census, we would have some flex salary dollars we would pay for with that revenue so we wouldn't need to be, every time that we have a bump in our census, coming back to the committee to ask for additional appropriation. >> thank you. >> thank you for the presentation. i'm going to pivot to the budget to hear her thoughts. >> ms. whitehouse summarized the spending in these two appropriation ordinances. the board of supervisor add min code so they get overtime approval before they spend the overtime money in their budget. this year three departments are coming forward, police, sheriff

and emergency management. in the case of police both at the airport in their general fund budget and the sheriff, the overtime is being funded through salary savings. you can see that on page eight of the report and page 11 of our report in both cases it does indicate that the budgeted positions are higher than the actual number of positions they currently have working. with emergency management they state the overtime expenditures are due to staffing up to meet the call volume and some attrition in their positions with public-health, as mr. wagner has been talking about, this is not overtime but needing permanent positions. spending for temporary and per diem positions in the permanent positions to meet the census and in both cases we do recommend approval of the ordinances. >> thank you. i want to go back to supervisor

fewer who has a few more questions. specifically for the sheriff's department. >> thank you, chair. also ms. whitehouse i have a question about highering permanent employees and also because i understand from a discussion that the, as much as the overtime is mandatory because of the minimum staffing that is needed and mandated in our facilities, so i know that this takes actually a toll on workers themselves that they, unless they work double shifts. so i am really interested in how quickly you the sheriff's department can staff up so that the deputy sheriff's actually are not required or mandated to do double-shifts or longer shifts which is not sustainable quite frankly for our workforce and also to have a healthy, emotionally, mentally and physically healthy workforce and so i'm anxious to hear about what are the plans to staff up

and when we can be guaranteed they will be staffed up so it will alleviate some of this mandatory overtime on the existing memberships. >> thank you for your question, supervisor, fewer. i will hand it over to the sheriff. from my perspective, this sheriff has really prioritized hiring in the last few years, they had a number of retirements and we have a really low unemployment rate right now as well as our fire and police departments are also staffing up along with the emergency management. i do think it's a challenging time and i have been really impressed with the number of classes they've been able to bring on and i do think that their c.f.o. has told me next year they should be at their budgeted and funding staffing levels but i want the sheriff an opportunity to respond on the toll that overtime takes on workers in those issues. >> thank you. >> thank you, i think she hit had on the nose, actually. good morning supervisors. just so i can give you some numbers and this will help i

think make it. so basically in 2015 when i became sheriff, we were down 80 people. i hired 72 in 2016. these are sworn positions. i hired 96 in 2017. however, in 2016, i lost 49 people, in 201763 people retired or separated from the department. so what i have here is i have a deficit of 192 with 168 hires so i'm still struggling. we're still getting there. i have to thank the mayor's office. they've been helpful and working with us consistently. we're at about capacity as the number of people that we can hire and send to an academy. we have the same issue as the police department it takes up to nine months before someone counts and can be hired. it's been a struggle for the department and our supervisors have spent the majority of their time just trying to get people

to work. we've been doing a lot of mandatory overtime. i will say it's gotten better just this last year because people are starting to count against their minimums. these people we've hired they've been trained and ready to go. we still have a ways to go but it has gotten better and i do ex peck an improvement. >> of your academy classes, what is the pass rate? >> our academy classes we send our people to different academies. these are regional academies as opposed to academies and our pay rate is above 90%. there are a few people do not make it. >> so are these sheriff that's have left is it through retirement? >> a lot of it is through retirement. between 25 and 30 years ago we had a lot of hiring and that is catching up with us. >> thank you. i have another question,

ms. whitehouse from the department of emergency management. i understand that we're at this 90% level, which should be proud of. however, when i went out to visit the department of emergency management i heard that the overtime is killing them. the workers there and so how are we able to keep this level of excellence, not depending on so much overtime? >> yes, absolutely. i totally understand and i agree and i feel like the department is actually having a pretty similar situation to the sheriff's department where they're not at their budgeted and funding staffing level. i do anticipate their budget and funding staffing level might change this year. we've been working with the department as hard as we can to figure how we can get them on as fast as possible. as you can imagine, they have extensive training requirements for bringing people to a job like that. so there are limitations on how many people that the department can bring on each year.

but i know brad is here from the department if you'd like to have some more specifics so i'll hand it over to him. >> yes, thank you. as we've heard, we basically have similar challenges to the sheriff's department and to the police department in our staffing level and hiring and we have been spending quite a lot in overtime to hit our service standard, which thankfully we are now hitting. we've been able to reduce significantly the amount of mandatory overtime, which is a good thing. not completely eliminated but come pretty close it eliminating it. with the future completion of training classes we should be able to eliminate the mandatory overtime and then start cutting back on the amount of voluntary overtime, which is very significant. i do think that the amount that

we've been asking, in some cases forcing people to work and the work environment has contributed to our attrition rate so we hope to see that go from a negative feedback loop to hopefully more of a positive feedback loop as we address these issues. >> let me just ask you, and this is probably to the sheriff's department and the police department as they have a hard time hiring. i think as though everyone seems to be having a hard time highering and i wonder so have you been hearing from people about the cost of living. the ability to have a livelihood here with families is that a big issue when you see people that may be highering? >> we've seen it less in highering. we haven't had a problem hiring the number of people we need to. we've seen it with more people who have gone through our training which is about nine or

10 months total training become a very good dispatcher and then leave to go to another agency. >> because of the cost of living here? >> i would speculate it's a culmination of cost of living as well as personal convenience where the person lives and work environment and as i just mentioned, a lot of mandatory overtime and stressful environments, i think the cost of living is one of the factors, yes. >> when we look at the investment we put each individual in these classes and training we put them through, what is your estimated cost of investment we put into each individual we train and actually work to be a dispatcher for two or three years? >> i would say i did this calculation a little while ago. i don't recall the exact number but it was over 200,000 per

person. >> $200,000 per person. >> of training. >> sheriff hennessey, what is your estimation of how much it cost the city and county of san francisco investment wise in training for each individual you might lose from your work force due to the cost of living of san francisco? >> i would say it cost $100,000 per person. we're not getting useful return at that moment and so i would say about $100,000 each. >> as an investment. >> if you talk about their salary and benefits and you also talk about the time they're counting away from the actual job getting the work done. >> so i just think that when we look at these investments, that we're putting in, into individuals, i mean of course our goal is to get off the

treadmill on this thing. they would stay with us and actually have at least an employment of 20 or 30 years with us and able to gain a pension with us also. so i'm looking at this investment actually of these individuals that are leave' and it's really costly to the city and county of san francisco. >> i would say we have a very good retention rate. you are seeing people that are retiring. some people discipline happens and people are terminated. they may not pass probation. there's not a lot of that. and a few people that don't pass the academy but generally our retention is good. >> people are leaving your work force because of the cost of living in san francisco and their inability to live here. >> i would say it's not the inability to live here. it may be the issue of commuting sometimes. people don't want to commute as far as they're commuting. i will say just to correct

something, it's not a problem in highering it's having positions to get people because we've been very successful in getting people to sign up and actually come into our department. you realize both the police department and us, we have a background process that people have to go to in order to be hired and there are people that fail that background process as well. that's generally through post requirements through the training requirements so there are different levels of people that take the test and don't pass and there's people that pass the test that go onto the background process and a few of those may not pass the background process and there are people that may go to an academy and not pass. i was guessing 90%. i would say it's higher than 90% in the academy of success rate. what is interesting for us and i think it's also true for the police department because i've had talks with them is that people don't drive like they used to and the driving portion