so i have -- to save time, i'm going to go to director mcguire and commander walsh on these costs because we don't -- we don't agree with the costs as presented, so turn it over. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisors, the budget request is 2 million in the first year and 1 million in the second year, dearrivrived by t actual purchase and training, that we don't have the funds to train officers as we roll them out. essentially, my understanding with respect to the training costs that are itemized here, is that this is salary's cost. ultimately, it could be represented as overtime. we wouldn't necessarily run our trainings on overtime, but again, we're not asking for

additional budget to pay officers to train. they're already paid, and we would assign them or detail them to the training as appropriate. and i'm happy to answer anymore questions about the details of the cost analysis. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor fewer? >> supervisor fewer: yes. [inaudible] >> supervisor fewer: i'd like to ask the b.l.a. on this report that actually h has $.5 million set aside for integration with body worn cameras, which i think the first analysis did not include. yes? >> supervisor cohen: real quickly, before you go to the b.l.a., just one second. i have a question for the department also piggybacking off what you just said, supervisor fewer. how many units does the $2 million purchase actually yield, and then, who would get them first? >> so i'll answer your second question first. so the way the policy is currently setup, the officers

that would get specifically the tasers would be everybody who has the 40 hour c.i.t. training. that number's roughly around 900 right now. we would significantly push towards patrol and in the district stations, not necessarily one station at a time, similar to what we did -- that is what we did with body camera, so this will be more of a gradual push out in all the districts. so those officers who have both the 40 hour c.i.t. training and the 20 hour c.i.t./use of force training, so that number is roughly right now around 900, and we are not -- by the commission's authorization, not allowed to start this until december of 2018, which gives us that lead up to have the logistics and the total training ready to go for

december-january to move those groups out, and it would be gradual based on class size. and then, we would also have to determine how long is our particular use of a taser device class going to be 'cause that's additional training. they generally go-between -- nas wide as an example between six and ten hours to actually physically use a taser. >> supervisor cohen: so you're saying training is usually somewhere between six and ten hours. >> just for the taser device itself. >> supervisor cohen: okay. that's helpful. thank you. >> and supervisor, just to answer your question about how many purchases, it will depend on multiple things, but the first of -- first of all is our ability to procure the devices as a cost savings -- at a cost savings, which should be about $1600 perunit. so 1600 -- the $1600 price

would be a pretty competitive price, so we gave ourselves about a 10%ly w leeway on that well. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. we will hear from b.l.a. now. >> supervisor fewer, your question was about $500,000 as part of the taser cost spending plan. can you hear me? >> supervisor fewer: yeah. excuse me. i'm so sorry to interrupt you, but i think that i have passed this out to all my colleagues, with you maybe you could go through what they're looking at your analysis here dated june 8, 2018, on the -- on the -- the taser policy. >> sure. so this is an analysis of the spending plan for the implementation of tasers. we looked at the police commission's policy, including all the training requirements.

we looked at the requirement purchase requirements, and then, we looked at the ongoing costs of having project managers in dedicated positions assigned to seeing this implementation through, as well as equipment replacement costs and other sort of administrative requirements, such as, you know, meetings among the command staff to assess the sort of recent use of these weapons, and that's basically where these numbers come from. some of theme are direct costs, right -- them are direct costs, and i can itemize them if you'd like. some of them are just -- particularly like the cost associated with meetings of the review board or certain training requirements, like the c.f.o. just said, of the police department, those are sort of just a dollar estimate on the hours associated with carrying out those tasks. it's not necessarily a number you could pull out of the

budget. now just to answer your specific question, supervisor fewer, about the .5 million for data integration, so that is actually leftover project funds from the body camera project that has never been spent but previously allocated by the board that will then be used to integrate information between the tasers and the body cameras, and that entire service, consulting costs, i think the department can speak to more specifically, is estimated to cost around $500,000 and again, will be drawn from fund balance from the body camera project. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so you're telling me that the body cameras have to talk to the tasers, kind of in a way. >> my understanding, yeah. >> supervisor fewer: okay. great. so you also included -- so

there's one-time cost, excluding training. and could you tell us that amount, please. >> the one-time cost, excluding training that would otherwise occur, if given you have -- that the board is leaning towards the new staffing structure of the department, would be about 7.2 -- excuse me. would be $7.2 million for one time costs. and then, the ongoing costs, we believe, would be $2.6 million. and this accounts for the -- the new staffing that the department is requesting in this budget cycle. >> supervisor fewer: okay. thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: do you want to -- >> yes. so that cost does include, as we said, the training, which is an ongoing cost. we are going to train every officer on the c.i.t., both 40-hour and the 20-hour field

tactic/use of force, regardless whether or not we had tasers. however, it's in the policy that in order to be issued a taser, the officers have to have that training, but that training will happen regardless of -- irregardless of the taser issue. so although there is a -- in the red cost associated with the cost of the officer's time, that cost is there any way. it's already included in our budgetary request, so it's not an individual costa attributable to tasers per se. as we see it, our cost and our ask is really the cost of the unit, and basically that, and that alone is what we're asking for. >> supervisor fewer: i think that -- correct me if i am wrong, b.l.a., that the cost of $7 million does not include the training cost. is that correct? >> it only includes the threat assessments field tactics training, which i understand

would not happen in the next two years at the scale without the implementations of tasers. that's one of the required trainings to obtain a taser? but in my conversation with the department, they told me that that would likely not occur over the next couple years. >> supervisor fewer: if we can't have a taser -- >> yeah. so that does not include the top three trainings on that sheet. >> supervisor fewer: that they would get any way. >> that they would get any way. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: colleagues, are there any other questions about tasers or the discussion of them? i don't have anything else. i don't have any other questions. i've asked mine. thank you. so there's a couple things here that we can do. we can take action today, and if you'd like -- well, we can take action today, but there

has to be a motion -- or we can add it to the open motion that i already have -- i've put on dealing with the academy classes. >> supervisor fewer: yeah. actually, i think that because of the lack of transparency for full and the true cost, and how that i think a timeline for when the training can be completed, and how many we can actually deploy in this first fiscal year, i would say to cut the first year funding and put the second year funding on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: you said cut the first year funding and put the second year funding on reserve. >> supervisor fewer: yes. >> supervisor cohen: cut it by how much? >> supervisor fewer: i would cut the entire first year budget and put the second -- >> supervisor cohen: you say cut it, you mean eliminating? >> supervisor fewer: eliminating. i want to get everybody on

board for training, and then we can implement this. i don't think we're ready to. and also, i think quite frankly, this year, around the d.o.j. recommendations, i know this is one of them. but they also recommended a culture in the -- and a shift in the culture, and also a training on focus. and i would focus on training this year. and i think that's what we should emphasize on before we actually deploy these and to make sure that everyone is properly trained. >> supervisor cohen: well, may i suggest in order -- because for us -- may i suggest that we be consistent with the decisions that we've made, and we've put a lot of things on budget reserve when there hasn't been a plan or there's been something that hasn't been very clear to us, so perhaps instead of completely eliminating it, that we could put it on a reserve, and that way, the money is still there, and it's still allocated, and the department will be able to come back with their overall plan, with their strategy,

with -- with whatever answers to -- i don't know what other questions you have remaining. >> supervisor fewer: well, i think that first, there's a bigger budget -- it's a larger budgeted item than what we thought, and we actually have not budgeted for the full implementation or when we're looking at these costs, this is way more than the anticipated cost from the first analysis that we've seen. >> supervisor cohen: you're talking about the budget analysis that the budget and legislative analyst's gave us. >> supervisor fewer: no. we've had analysis about what the tasers would cost us, and i think the chief gave us an analysis about what the implementation will cost, so i think we see a difference in numbers with the b.l.a. is that correct? >> that's correct. i just want to be correct, supervisor fewer, when you say lack of transparency, what specifically -- >> supervisor fewer: so i didn't mean it -- i'm sorry.

i probably misspoke, meaning that lack of knowledge on my part about how much the full implementation would cost. it wasn't until i see this until i actually got a feel for how much was the extensive cost of implementation. so you think the costs of this are what, chief. >> the cost of the actual taser devices. >> supervisor fewer: and the whole implementation so from training for it, buying it, getting it on the street, what do you think the full cost is? >> well, the training cost, we don't see that as an additional cost. we're going to have training -- >> supervisor fewer: so what is your cost then, not including -- because i have also a $7 million price tag here that does not include training. so what is your analysis of how much this might cost without training? >> yeah, the 3.5 million that

we're requesting is what we believe are the costs to implement this program. >> supervisor fewer: so i think that's where i have a little difference, is that i see a b.l.a. report that's done this analysis. the chief tells us it's 3.5 million, the b.l.a. report tells us it's twice as much. so this is my concern about budgeting something that actually we have a difference of opinion about how much the actual cost is. >> supervisor cohen: chief, have you reviewed the b.l.a. report? >> yes. >> can you speak to the discrepancies? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: between what you're proposing and what the b.l.a. is proposing. i am looking at it, and i don't quite understand it. >> so you want to go ahead? go ahead. >> supervisors, i haven't had a chance to -- i have had a chance to review this, and the new cost is what we're talking

about, $3.5 million. the budget and legislative analyst's costs are in here as well. the threat assessment field tactics training is again, costs of hours associated with people attending a ten-hour training, rather than what we would do, which is assign people to that training on duty. >> supervisor cohen: so that's already been accounted for in the budget. >> that's correct cone ko. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so that's one example. >> the equipment purchases, we feel that our biggest discrepancy is here. so the -- the discrepancy -- we feel that we can command a lower price perunit than the b.l.a. has estimated. >> supervisor cohen: so -- thank you. i want to pivot. b.l.a., if you could just explain them a little bit. your cost of equipment purchase

is high, and is it because p.d.'s got the inside track and can get a reduced cost or -- >> it's possible. i think that they are still finalizing the contract. >> oh, we have not begun the procurement product. >> so the unit cost of the weapon is still uncertain. we took -- because we found that in a prior analysis from the sheriff's department? >> that's actually the direct cost of the sheriff's department, the same equipment. >> so the other difference i think -- so perthe policy, we looked at the number of positions perthe commission policy that were eligible for these kind of weapons, and we looked at the number that they have and that they are asking for in this budget, and that's the sort of multiplying fack for between the unit costs and the number of people that are eligible. i think that the department has a slightly different plan for who is going to get them?

not everyone who's eligible may get them in the first year? and so that, i think accounts for some of the difference between our one-time costs and their budgeted cost in this budget cycle? however, if everyone who is eligible were to get these weapons, this would be the cost. >> supervisor cohen: is everyone -- is the long-term goal that everyone that is eligible would get a device? >> long-term, yes. it would be a standard piece of equipment, baton, pepper spray. >> supervisor cohen: okay. and you can kind of understand what kind of position that we're in. i mean -- the unit cost is higher than what you guys are proposing, so how do we reconcile the difference? >> supervisor, when i originally saw this, a couple

things. first off, the sheriff's are using -- they've had theirs, i think since the early 2000's, so newer devices are out. we're a larger department than the sheriff's. our equipment, just on the basis of drive, we will be able to have a lower cost per unit. i think the unit that i saw in the b.l.a. was somewhere in the $2200 range perunit. correct me if i am wrong, but the actual unit price, if you even went retail, if we were not the san francisco, is roughly around 1600. so that's with nonnegotiation retail. so i think the discrepancy may be in the bargaining factor and where the prices actually are at this point, even retail, and i'm not even saying that we couldn't negotiate lower, and i think that's -- if you take my 1600, and again, from what i remember, it was 2200 a unit. we're talking $600 a unit, and

if you multiply that almost over 2,000 individuals, that's almost a dramatic drop. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. okay. all right, folks, is there any other discussion on this? well, supervisor fewer, you've been leading the discussion on this. i don't know how you want to proceed on this. she's made a proposal to cut out the allocation in this year's altogether, and what did you say to do year two? >> supervisor fewer: and put the year two on reserve. so we can actually know -- have a time to know what the real costs are. i think there's a discrepancy on the discount -- discount we can get, how much it's really going to cost. this isn't something we want to do sort of halfway. we want to make sure if we're going to train for this, and

we're diagnose to deploy with this, we want to make sure that we have the resources to actually do it well and do it right, and i just think if we don't have money set -- the actual -- we don't know, we'll probably have -- we may have to add more money to this. we don't know. i just feel like we don't really have the real numbers -- haven't done the procurement process yet, we don't really know. you might say -- we might say 600 on each, we don't know. i just feel like it's too early to actually come up with these funds. i would put them on reserve at the very least. >> supervisor cohen: you would put them on reserve at the very least. okay. that would require the department to come back and show us what? >> supervisor fewer: yeah, the actual cost when we're working with the supplier. and i just want to say with the

sheriff's department, they have tasers, but they don't have firearms in the jail at all. their deployment is very different. this deployment is everyone has one to -- i mean, i -- i just think that we don't know the true cost of it yet. once we get the true cost, once you've gone through the procurement process, this is the price we can get, then, let's budget for us to do it in a really responsible way, where we can roll it out the same way that the chief wants to roll it out, that everybody has one, not just a few. >> supervisor cohen: may i ask a question, miss mcguire. can you come up for a second. in terms of making purchases, how does that work within your department? do you have to have the money allocated before you can get a purchase order? >> yes, we have to have the money available in our budget in order to actually issue a purchase order to a vendor. >> supervisor cohen: right. so at most, your ability just to come back to this body, even if it's tomorrow or maybe next

week, and say okay, we've clarified, this is how much the unit cost -- it's going to cost us, and we want x number of this cost, meaning that it's going to total out whatever the number will be, that's the most information you'll be able to gather and bring back to us. >> that's correct, and if i did not have the $2 million in the budget in the budget year, i wouldn't go out and do the procurement, and so i still would not go more. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor, if i could just restate what commander walsh said, the perunit price is $600 less. that's no guesswork. we believe we can negotiate lower, but the retail price, starting, there's a $600 discrepancy. retail is $600 lower, so i want to make sure that fact is known to the committee here. >> supervisor cohen: yeah, thank you. the retail price is less, which means you can either buy more units in the budget allocation.

>> well, it accounts for some of the discrepancy that was mentioned here. and we believe that we can go actually lower than that with a negotiated price, but we're starting at a $600 less retail price. >> supervisor cohen: let me ask a question because a policy decision has been made by the police commission, and they have made a decision to outfit officers with the tasers. >> correct, yes. >> supervisor cohen: so then, you have members of the -- of this body that's approving the budget, and if they don't fund it, what happens? what happens with the policy directive that the commission has given to the department? you know, like, i don't know. maybe that's a city attorney question, but i would be curious to hear your perspective from the city attorney. how do you reconcile that standoff? you don't know? >> it would be unfunded. the policy is there, the will is there, and just the need -- we need the funding. it has to be funded in order for us to realize that.

>> supervisor cohen: and do you have the ability to go get -- well, i guess you can. you can go get federal dollars, if you can, or state dollars, but it would still have to come before the did you jet committee to be allocated and expend for the purchase of the tasers, so it looks like a little bit of a catch that you can be in. i want to hear from the city attorney on this. so just to reiterate, the police commission has said they want sfpd to have tasers, and it looks like this body is not interested in honoring that commitment or that policy statement. how do you reconcile this? what happens? >> under the charter the board has the budgetary authority over city departments, so city departments -- city commissions like the police commission make policies that can bind their department, but subject to budgetary authority from the board. so ultimately, if the bored

doesn't fund tasers, the police commission's policy will essentially be dormant until -- until the -- >> supervisor cohen: until it's actualized. okay. thank you. thank you for that clarification. okay. so if you'd like, we can do this in two ways -- deal with the police academy, in one motion and deal with the taser in another motion. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor cohen, do you have a suggestion around the motion around the taser policy? >> supervisor cohen: can you restate your motion, what you're considering? >> supervisor fewer: yeah. originally, i said to cut it from the first year and put the second year on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: cut it for the first year and put it on reserve for the second year. >> supervisor yee: second.

>> supervisor cohen: but what's the rationale? >> supervisor fewer: i think that the chief comes before us and says it's $600 less. i actually am looking at the b.l.a. report, and i think there's a discrepancy really in the funding. so i would say one, let's get through some more -- i think what the chief has said is people have to have this 40 hour training. not everyone on the force has been trained yet, and that they hope to deploy every single police officer with a taser, and -- but yet only about 900 have been trained so far, so it'll take a while to ramp up. so that's why i'm suggesting that maybe this isn't the first year they can do it. but the second -- they can come back to us also with the actual cost and put that amount in reserve. if you want, we can put the full amount in reserve until everybody's trained and we have a training schedule until how this will be deployed. i actually think that in this

body, it is not at the -- i think the police commission has spoken, and they have setup guidelines in how this should be implemented, and actually, these costs actually reflect how it should be implemented according and aligned to the san francisco police commission taser policy. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor fewer: the chief is not asking that we only give a few people tasers, he is suggesting that the police is everyone would get one. >> sorry to interrupt, but if i may speak. >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> we were and are planning on the roll out to be methodical. we don't plan to do this with the entire police force at one time, just like with body cameras and any other major

roll out, it's done in steps, and that's the plan for this particular weapon, as well. so i just want to set the record straight. there are no restrictions on which officers can have them, but we did not intend to roll this out to the entire police department at one time. >> supervisor fewer: do you have a plan for roll out that you can share with us, chief. >> yeah. kma commander walsh stated a few minutes ago, we're going to roll it out in all ten district stations, starting with patrol. we want it to be distributed across the city, and to do that incrementally, not at one time. we have to be -- as you stated, supervisor fewer, we have to have the training that has to be fulfilled that's going to take time to get the entire department trained. plus, from a logistical standpoint, we don't think it's a -- a wise idea to roll them out all at one time.

we think that should be done incrementally, and commander walsh who's been heading this, i'll let him speak in more detail. >> thank you, chief. supervisor, so if i would just change it from taser to body comra, as the chief is alluding to. so let's say the number is 2,000, just a round number. we didn't just give every officer a body camera on day punish and parachute them in. we don't have the band width -- i don't believe any department has the band width to do that. so you take a segment of that population. we started that at stations. so for instance, we would designate richmond station as the first to get body cameras. the difference in this is with the tasers is because c.i.t. officers are spread throughout the city, and they are the ones who are going to get the taser, it's going to be multiple stations but at -- not an entire watch, not an entire

district at one time. so it's going to be stepped and measured as a gradual roll out. the other thing, too, is when we budget for the device itself, as you mentioned, just like body cameras, part of that is how to use those from the manufacturer, so we didn't just give the -- our officers body camera and go, you press this button, and it's on. it's going to be the same. so that takes coordination with the vendor. that take is us to train up a cadre of officers that will then be in charge of training our officers. so if we don't move forward in july, then that in december, when we would be authorizing, we would have -- now we have to get that cadre of officers trained to catch up. so it just delays the process. this window of july through december gives us that time to

have that detailed rolling graduate process to -- gradual process to come out. >> supervisor fewer: so commander, are you detailing to have reports come out in the first six months with these officers? like, what works, what doesn't work? do they feel like wearing a 25 pound belt railroad and adding another -- belt and adding another thing onto it is too much? we have known in some of these latest incidents that body cameras were not turned on. these are the questions that i have not really seen a full plan of this, but i think what you're saying to me is that you would like to start implementation as soon as possible to buy the equipment as soon as possible to have people actually using these weapons before the end of the year. and then, you can scale up as people get trained on it.

so i think my question to you is, do you -- have you put in -- in your timeline, a time for evaluation since this is a new product that -- or weapon, actually, less lethal weapon than -- that people -- that you can get feedback from? >> so -- absolutely. so we do consider it a weapon, just like pepper spray, a baton, firearm. so one of the d.o.j. recommendations as far as evaluations is we do a supervisory use of force after every incident, so everything from drawing a firearm to you see othering your baton to using hands on techniques. so every time that this taser gets used, that is done. we've agreed. if you look at the addendum on the police commission, to setup specifically a taser review board. within that, certain criteria of that use of that weapon will

be discussed and evaluated, with then a random 10% of successful applications that don't necessarily meet the threshold to go to that board, but to review. it will be -- also, part of the policy says we will have a coordinator who will be in charge of not only producing these reports but doing these evaluations, and we're always asking for feedback. as you know and as you stated, we still have issues with the body camera. there's a muscle memory issue, there's an issue, especially for the older officers who haven't had it. the younger officers who are just coming in, they're much better at it because they've never known anything different. so there will be a learning curve. at the same time for body cameras and tasers, one of the biggest accountability pieces to this is that if we were to go with axon who is our body camera producer, every time an officer turns the safety on, meaning that it's ready to

fire, if the camera on their body is not on, it automatically goes on. so there is a built in accountability factor that does attach to the body camera which then is also -- will be analyzed during our review boards if they meet that criteria. >> supervisor fewer: and are you also analyzing the health effects of what happens to people who are tased? >> so our policy mandates that these individuals -- if a successful application takes place, that not only they see an ambulance crew, they will be checked out at the hospital. so we would get all that application. now, whether or not the doctors and everybody give us that, that's an issue that has to do with the confidentiality. we would know the -- i would say the more general. obviously, we will know if somebody stays in the hospital, if somebody's injured or

something like that, but because they already have tasers, that they would accept these custodies, so we also have them as a resource, because a person could actually be tased and be fine and refuse both of those treatments, ambulance and hospital. and in preliminary discussions with the sheriff's office because they're experienced in this, they would also be looking at that medical issue before they were booked into jail if that's in fact where that person was going. >> supervisor fewer: thank you, commander. so i put a proposal on the table. i'm open to hearing other suggestions. >> supervisor cohen: question. how do the sheriff's get tasers before p.d.? why didn't it sync up simultaneously? >> i couldn't answer that. they do have a patrol function, and i'm not sure if they carrie them on -- carry them on patrol. historically that's not something i could answer. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. all right. i reached out to the sheriff.

supervisors, any other comments? okay. could you restate your -- your motion. >> supervisor fewer: yeah, my motion was to cut the funding the first year, put the second year on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: all right. is there a second? >> supervisor yee: second. >> supervisor cohen: all right. we will do a roll call vote on this. >> clerk: on the motion -- [roll call] >> clerk: there's three ayes and two noes with supervisors stefani and sheehy in the dissent. >> supervisor cohen: all right. we're just be wrapped up here. -- about wrapped up here. we need to take motion on the academy classes. the motion that is on the table is approving the first academy class and putting the second

one on a reserve that needs to be -- that is contingent on a civilian analysis that will be before us in the first six months of the fiscal year. >> supervisor yee: it was first five. >> supervisor cohen: first five months of the fiscal year. is there no second on that? okay. yes, supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: i had a question. so accept full staffing in year one and put funding for staffing in year two on hold? >> supervisor cohen: that's correct. mr. rosenfeld? >> we're reserving the value of the january class in year two, as i understand, so we'll calculate the cost of that and place that amount in reserve. >> supervisor cohen: yes. i'm sorry, was there a second

on that motion? okay. well, then, the motion fails. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: someone else make the motion. >> supervisor fewer: no, i was just going to say that i think supervisor yee was going to propose a motion. >> supervisor yee: yeah, i think it was my original thought, and i'll -- i guess my compromise would be that i'll -- i won't disturb the first year's class, and to actually put -- reduce the amount for the budget on the second year to the cost of the academy class cost, and, again, i want to reity -- reiterate that after the study there shows that hardly anyone can be

civilianized, i would go in the next year to support to put it back in. >> supervisor cohen: so would you please succinctly restate your motion. mr. rosenfeld? >> i understand that motion, supervisor, to be no changes in year one, but in year two, cutting or reducing the budget by the value of the january class. >> supervisor yee: correct. and then, i believe it's around how much? the 7 million or something like that? >> no, the value of the january class is likely in the $4 million range as opposed to the larger value, which is the annualization of the prior here class plus the second year value of the class. so i believe we can do the

calculation if the committee -- if that's the committee's desire, but it's approximately a $4 million reduction. >> supervisor yee: it's whatever -- i would have preferred to have both of them until we figure it out, but i think there's enough passion for -- to keep the first year and respectfully, i'm going to do a compromise here, so the compromise is to do the second year's. >> supervisor cohen: i don't understand the second part, supervisor. you want to reduce the budget proposal in fiscal year 19-20, taking out the cost of the academy class and allowing everything else to remain. >> supervisor yee: correct. >> supervisor cohen: can you explain why? you want to determine whether or not academy class is needed? >> supervisor yee: i believe that some of the number of officers that we want -- that chief scott wants to have on

the street, 250 of them, we can accomplish at least 50 positions of civilianization -- >> supervisor cohen: oh, i see what you're saying, but that would require doing an analysis. >> supervisor yee: yeah, an analysis. we're going to two possibilities in which somebody even suggested 100, i think, supervisor fewer. and then, when we asked last week of what -- you know, what -- the possibility could be, just, chief scott says 68, and i made it even more conservative and assumed about 50. so i'm going to -- i'm making an semassumption and if i'm correct, i'll go ahead and fight to put it back in the

budget, 4 million or so. >> supervisor fewer: yeah, i second that. >> supervisor cohen: okay. roll call vote. >> clerk: on the motion, authored by supervisor yee -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are two ayes and three noes, with supervisor kazz stefanph a -- supervisor stefani, sheehy, and cohen in the dissent. >> supervisor cohen: okay. we're going to keep moving forward. we'll take public comment. chief and command staff, thank you very much for your presentation. we'll see you again on wednesday. we're going to open up for public comment. this is public comment on items 1 and 2. just as a reminder, people will have two minutes to comment. you'll hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on the balance of your time,

and then your microphone will be cutoff on the balance of your allotments. i want everybody to come down. i had two speaker cards, and i lost them. so -- but come on down for public comment. thank you. >> good afternoon. jim lazarus, san francisco chamber of commerce. thank you for your debate on this issue of staffing. i think you're all closer than you might think sitting in those chairs. i was around in 1984 when mayor feinsteins came up with the 1971 officers. >> supervisor cohen: can we pause the time, please, city attorney? >> mr. givner: deputy city attorney, jon givner. i believe the comment is only on the two year budget departments. the remainder of the departments including police will have comments on wednesday.

>> supervisor cohen: that's correct. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: so we'll see you wednesday. thank you. all right. any other member -- this is general public comment, so if you are interested in coming and speaking on items 1 and 2, please come on down. hi, beverly. >> good afternoon, supervisors, good afternoon, committee. beverly upton, san francisco domestic violence consortium. i'm really here to implore you not to forget funding of violence against women. we have a $1.2 million budget ask in it funds 27 agencies. it's less than 41,000 peragency, and as we heard from the police department, one murder in san francisco costs $8 million. when i first joined the consortium, we were looking at 10 to 12 domestic violence homicides a year? now we are looking at a tragic two or three? this work is homicide

prevention, it's homelessness prevention. please don't forget to fund ending violence against women. thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. are there any other persons that would like to speak on this items 1 and 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: okay. what i'd like to do is move to continue items 1 and 2 to wednesday, june 27, 10:00 a.m., and this is, again, dealing with just the may 1 budget, and then, i'd like to continue to move forward -- i've circulated -- colleagues, i've circulated a few documents for your review. the first is a proposed rebalancing plan for mayor elect london breed and myself. this letter identifies the addition of 43.3 million over

two years for homeless services, shelters, housing subsidies. i've also circulated our proposed spending plan to reflect the cuts that we've made thus far in the committee. it's updated -- it's an updated spebding plan. it allocates $30 million for two years. first i'd like to turn to miss kelly kirkpatrick who will walk us through the sources of these new homeless services and prechbs. and miss kirk dlt patrick, if you could just present on the rebalancing plan, and then this will give us the opportunity to ask questions. >> well, first, committee, thank you so much as we've worked through this. we're very pleased to despite the failure of proposition b, be able to fund many of the homeless services that have been identified by the

department, this committee, and the mayor, and the mayor elect. most notably, the three priority of spending -- the three prioritized spending areas include first continuing to support the critical programs that were funded in fiscal year 18-19 but did not have funding identified in isk if will year 19-20 after the failure of proposition d. that is included in many of the items that we've talked about through the committee, problem solving and home ward bound, new units of permanent supportive housing, enhanced services in permanent supportive housing units and facilities, and operations for four navigation centers, including one for women and children, and that is so ensuring the continuity of that funding. secondly, it funds three brand-new programs or -- not brand-new programs, but adds additional funding for new programming that did not go

forward because of proposition d failing. that includes a navigation center, happened rehousing for adults, and a flexible housing subsidy allocation. and then as chair cohen noted, it also adds funding to ensure eviction protection in line with proposition f which was passed by the voters with the committee's proposed .5 million each year. it gets us nearly $4 million for additional funding for tenants facing eviction. and finally, the three sources that enable us to fund this rebalancing plan include first at the june 15 health service system board meeting, they approved health rates for retirees that are lower than what we anticipated in the budget. we receive about $16 million over the course of the two year

budget as a result of those lower negotiated rates by the health service system. secondly, action at the state budget level has enabled us to fund this rebalancing plan, as well. notably, there's a one-time homeless emergency aid program created at the state level. the budget is still pending approval by the governor, but we are anticipating that that would happen this week, so there's one-time available funding of $27.7 million available for that that will help us identify these new programs that we've identified. additionally they are growing the size of the existing emergency solutions grant to provide ongoing funding for housing and homeless services? it's about $2 million growing to $3 million through the e.s.g. program. i will note that my office will move technical adjustment package to actualize this proposal in the next two days.

if you have any questions, happy to answer them. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. colleagues, just do you have any questions or need any clarifications from miss kirkpatrick at the budget office. i don't know if emily cohen is here -- oh, emily cohen is here. i'm going to give her an opportunity to speak on the rebalancing plan. >> thank you, supervisor cohen, supervisors. just want to thank the mayor's budget office, kelly and her team for the diligent to rebalance the budget after the failure of prop d. we're very excited about this spending plan, about this new budget, and the items that reply with it will bring approximately 300 units of new rapid rehousing, the navigation center, and we wanted to express our sincere thanks to this board and the mayor's

budgeting office for working through this, and i'm hoppy to answer any questions -- happy to answer any questions you may have. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. and i'm happy to recognize kelly kirkpatrick and her team, and i want to recognize emily cohen and jeff kovitsky for their patience and flexibility. since there are no questions, i'd like to make a motion to accept the rebalancing plan in the h.s.h. and mohcd budgets. all right. seconded by supervisor sheehy, and i will take that without objection. all right. thank you very much. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, miss kelly. [please stand by]

>> supervisor cohen: that captured a very large number of people. i recommend we increase funding for senior services to help seniors continue to live in their home and for workforce development. these are issues that my colleagues have highlight. i want to welcome any suggestion on how that funding could be more specifically -- should be more specifically allocated as they are fairly high levels. i suggest that we allocate more funding to mental health services. which i directed towards homeless individual and family. i would welcome any of your feedback if it should be more or

less. i suggested a significant one time investment in year two for open voting. the elections commissions requested $4 million which would be matched -- actually i'm sor sorry, advocacy group requested $4 million matched by the state and department of election indicated they need to do more study over the remaining coming year to create a use or rollout plan for that money. that's why i am honoring the request that's come this bed by the election commission to put that money in year two and $2 million allocation. also, i'm proposing that we maintain a third position that we move third position at the h.r.c. for the sharp program.

the original request come from the supervisor for three positions. this morning the budget that we moved from the department of public health and h.r.c. has two allocation. would be enough to fill a third position. i'm not sure that the third position is warranted. i do want to bring that issue to the committee for a discussion. finally, i heard that there was a clear need for dedicated funding for transgender groups separate and apart from the general lgbtq services. i suggested that a $200,000 allocation annually go to additional discussion on what the highest priority of this type of programming will be. this is just a suggested allocation up to this body and for the larger board of

supervisors to help to determine and how the programming would look. there are few things that i would like to have funded that are not here. these things that are coming from suggestions from colleagues. i like supervisor yee i like to see a higher investment in home delivered meals. the plan i suggested reduces the weight lift for groceries by half but it doesn't address the meal. secondlyi agree with supervisor's yee letter that out of school time we discussed with director maria sue can be more target toward more foster youth. we should see more funding for summer programs. next flexible housing subsidies for seniors and people with disabilities are important. i want to say that we stand by families as a priority.

but we also discuss whether an additional amount in the allocation should go for seniors. finally i think the sheriff's station, station $1.3 million transfer ask is important. it's actually something we haven't really discussed here in the committee. i like to begin discussion here. as i mentioned this is a jumping off point for negotiation. i thank my colleagues for their continued engagement in this process. through our priority process, we've identified public safety, clean streets, clean and green streets and homelessness and housing as a significant priority for this committee. again, i want to remind the public that these policy areas reflect policy spending. if there's a specific population that has a specific need, we should discuss that here today

as well as on wednesday. otherwise you want to trust our departments to do their best to identify the needs within these specific policy areas and they will do that through the r.f.p. process. we will bring expanding funding back on committee reserve to understand how the r.f.p.s that will be spent. they will be rolled out from department head. it's a lot of information. i hope we'll be able to have a robust discussion. gao the spreadsheet in front of you. we can start with supervisor fewer >> supervisor fewer: thank you. what i see -- thank you supervisor cohen for taking a stab at this. who i see missing here, we heard lot about this in public testimony. workforce development for homeless people.

i actually think that getting them a job is a step out of homelessness and actually into the san francisco workforce is also an entrance san francisco general society. i think it's a good thing. i think that wasn't mentioned here in these priorities but i think it's pretty important. i also think that the housing subsidies for seniors and people with disability, in my district i'm seeing seniors displaced as a rapid rate and it's because they can't keep up with the housing cost because their income is flat. these are people retired 25 years ago or 30 years ago and now find themselves in a housing market they are priced out of. i bring your attention to those two topics. this is something that ewould like to see an investment in.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: i know this is a lot to put this all together. really appreciate that. thank you for moving in the direction we're seeing the need for early education and also some of your suggestions on supporting seniors. so yes, there's couple of missing pieces as you already mentioned that i would love to see more support. home meals are would be very important. you mentioned foster children. many of the foster children will be timing out and they will become the