meetings this month just to get all of our items out the door. we had our final one yesterday, so that shouldn't be an issue. >> supervisor cohen: well, the issue is that you have money that you haven't spent down, and you said that you would like to -- you want this money so that you can spend it immediately, so i'm having a hard time with that. >> so the month notty that we haven't spent it allocated. it's still allocated to various things. it was a $6 million in the first year that we allocated to very specific items, and it just took a long time to get the money out the door. this new money for 18-19 is being allocated for different things, so we're ready to get this out the door if we can. last year, we tried as much as we can to modify contracts when we could, we tried hard to get modifies to contracts done, but it's a very long process, so it took a while to get that out the door. but the new 3 million is for

different programs and services than the existing 6 million in our current budget. >> supervisor yee: chair cohen? >> supervisor cohen: yes, supervisor yee? >> supervisor yee: can i get clarification? >> supervisor cohen: yes, go ahead. >> supervisor yee: so the 2 million that was talked about are for potential contracts that are pretty much ready to go. >> right. >> supervisor yee: yeah, so it's going to be spent. and now -- now, you're ready to, i guess, do an r.f.p. for another 3 million? >> right, and we'll modify contracts where we can if we're already in contract with somebody for that service, and if it's a new -- some of them are for new services, we'll have to go out and put a request for proposal out for those. >> supervisor yee: and how soon can you start it? >> how soon can we start? >> supervisor yee: mm-hmm. >> well, with the process of starting -- >> supervisor yee: if we approve everything, how soon can you start it?

>> july 1. >> supervisor yee: okay. so you will be able to allocate the rest of the 3 million pretty soon. >> that's our -- that's our goal. >> supervisor yee: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: is there any other discussions? so i -- i actually am comfortable with keeping the $3 million on budget reserve and accepting the recommendation from the b.l.a. at this point. so if we are prepared to vote on this, we can put it to a roll call vote. i'm comfortable with having discussion from my colleagues. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair cohen. i would just -- since you were the author of this, your reasons for being comfortable with keeping it on reserve? >> supervisor cohen: because i don't see the budget reserve as a hindrance on allocation of dollars. if there's anything that needs to get out immediately, they've got 2.5 million, is that what it is? 2.5 million already in the department that they can spend immediately that would allow them to do their r.f.p., roll

out the money. i understand the spending won't change, but if they have money already to spend, why wouldn't enthuse spend that first if before they go to the 3 million allocation. if i'm incorrect in my information to the b.l.a., please correct me, but that is he ahow i understand it. >> that's correct. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i don't know if you had a chance to just hear what i was saying. >> i did. >> supervisor cohen: okay. do you want to respond to it? >> it's fine. i was just actually trying to avoid having to come back and report the same thing to you again. i'm happy to do that and have it go through the approval process if that's the will of the committee. >> supervisor cohen: all right. is there any other discussion? i don't know if this is a unanimous vote or not. >> supervisor yee: so i had a motion. you want me to withdraw my motion? >> supervisor cohen: if you'd like to withdraw your motion, yes. if you -- if you want to, we can take the motion -- you

know, i don't want to be too heavy handed in this. >> supervisor yee: no, i understand. >> supervisor fewer: can we take a vote on supervisor yee's motion if it still stands? >> supervisor cohen: sure. supervisor yee, can you restate your motion? >> supervisor yee: sure. my motion was to accept the b.l.a.'s recommendations with the exception of putting the 3 million on reserve. >> supervisor cohen: with the exception? >> supervisor yee: right. >> supervisor cohen: with the exception of putting the 3 million on reserve, so you do not want it on reserve. >> supervisor yee: yes. >> supervisor cohen: seconded by supervisor fewer. >> supervisor cohen: can we have a roll call vote. [roll call] >> clerk: there are two ayes, three knows, with supervisor stephanie, sheehy and cohen in the dissent.

>> supervisor cohen: very well. that means that the item does not pass, that we accept the recommendations, and that this item -- i will make a motion that we keep this item on reserve. all right. can we take that without objection? we have a second? supervisor sheehy has indicated a second, and so the motion passes unanimously. thank you. all right. [please stand by for captioner switch]

>> supervisor cohen: we're going to take public comment on items four and five. >> no problem. do you want to hear about the golf first? >> supervisor cohen: it's probably easier. >> okay. >> good morning chair cohen. good morning budget committee members i'm director of property and permits with rec and park department. i'm here first before you to

present legislation to adjust our tennis fees. these adjustments are the first time they have been adjusted in over 20 years. the new rate has been publicly discussed during community meetings as well as rec and park commission. the ordinance will enable and ensure equitable rates in our service and activity in the golden gate park tennis after it is renovated. the lowest possible rate for our residents. if you have any questions. >> supervisor cohen: yes i do. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i like your senior rate. i would like to suggest that the seniors be identified as 60 years and older and rather than 65 years and older. was there a discussion about that? >> that never came up.

that's what we've had all our senior rates across our other facilities. we were matching those. >> supervisor fewer: you identified, across all your programs, it's always 65? >> yes. wait, i'm 61. i get you. >> supervisor fewer: not to make it personal. i know that i joined the gold golden gate park senior center. their age requirement is lower than that. >> i'm pretty sure all our fees across our entire system are marked at 65 historically. >> supervisor fewer: would you make an exception for this particular fee or has this been somehow, fiscally worked out that between 60 and 65, thanks a huge -- >> i think our desire is to try to remain consistent.

this is not really ideological thing or fiscal thing. we try to keep our fee structure consistent across the variety of our programs and services. our preference would be to keep it as is. for that reason. >> supervisor fewer: okay, thanks. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions about the changes in fees? was there any feedback given from the public on the changes and fees. >> i believe we submitted some letters from the tenants coalition. we held a community meeting at the county fair building. there were 400 people present. only suggestion we got to raise nonresident fee. which we did in response to that. at the commission meeting, it was discussed. >> supervisor cohen: for the record, could you tell us where

the fees are and at what level you like to raise them to? >> just to note that the fees have not had a cost of living estimate in 20 years. they were not put in the code. all other fee have gone up, they haven't. these new fees will long go into effect after we have completed the renovation. current fee for residents is $3 an hour. it's going to $8 and nonresidents $12. weekends and evenings where we will have lights country currently it's $4 and seniors is $4. usta matches goes from $10 to $18. >> supervisor cohen: i i'm going to take public comment. if there's any member of the public like to comment on three

and four about the increase if fees for the tenant center and golf course. please come up. seeing none. public comment is closed at this time. colleagues, there's no further discussion. i like to make a motion that we send items four ai and five to e full board. >> you need to amend these items and continue them. because the amendment triggers a continuance to date certain next week. next wednesday is probably the day. >> supervisor cohen: if we're going to continue to july 19th. madam clerk. >> clerk: can we continue to july 12th, budget and finance committee meeting? >> supervisor cohen: for what reason? >> clerk: the reason that fees need on july 12th, any time we

change the current rate, we need to send out another public notice. >> there were two pieces of legislation. only one had an amendment to it. tenants fees don't need to be continued. just the golf where there was clerical error. >> supervisor cohen: i was interrupted but that's okay. i wanted to approve item four send it to full board. item five is one that needs the amendment. thank you mr. deputy city attorney. the motion i like to approve item four and send to the full board with a positive recommendation. supervisor yee indicated a second. without objection. item five we will amend approve the amendment for item five. we'll continue to july 12th because recommendation of the clerk. is there a second. supervisor yee seconded that. we will see this again july 12th and we'll take that

without objection. thank you. now on to the fun group. please. >> thank you supervisors. we have spent the week working with the budget analyst and we are prepared to accept the budget analyst recommendations. there are two outstanding policy issues. we only have a concern with one of them. that is a decision to put -- is do on reserve? question about a substitution of a 2708 custodian position. we had a vacant position last year in our budget that we did a temporary exchange to a personnel clerk under dhr

policies. we have an incumbent in that position. it was an important switch for us. we have an incumbent in it who is performing quite well. we prefer to keep the incumbent in that position. there's no fiscal impact to the exchange, i don't think. >> supervisor cohen: b.l.a. >> chair cohen. reason why we were looking at the substitution is because this is for senior personnel clerk and the human resources division of the department. this division currently already has two full time personnel clerk and two senior personnel clerks. our understanding previously was that it was temporary. we've been corrected on that.

that this substitution was done prior to board approval. we wanted to bring it forward to the attention of the committee. >> supervisor cohen: why did you do it prior to board approval? >> it's pretty standard at the department level. you can i can changes vacant position within a 15% salary differential of the position. we had a particular need in light of some of the system changes that were happening to people soft. which is our human resources and payroll processing systems. we had a staffing hold that we wanted to fill. we have an incumbent. there was a list we selected the person we would prefer to keep them. it was mid-year change. >> supervisor cohen: is there a general fund cost or cut?

>> yes, it is a general fund position. >> supervisor cohen: of course. >> would this cost reduction in someone's job. >> if the position substitution is denied, it could potentially result in a lay off of an individual. yes. >> thank you. >> you work for the city for a long time. it makes me uncomfortable ungrade in classification happen outside of the process. you said something about dhr codes. >> the city's personnel system, personnel and budget system allow for the -- this is not unique to the recreation, park

department, allows for position substitutions in a similar salary band. so that really is no or minimal fiscal impact to meet mid-year operational need. we just followed that process. there was nothing particularly exceptional about this one. the budget analyst is bringing it to your attention. we do have an incumbent in it. >> supervisor cohen: how long this incumbent been in this position? >> about six months. >> supervisor cohen: it's new. >> it was done mid-year. >> supervisor cohen: probably done in january if you think about it. we were in june and they been in the position for six months. which means that i guess with better planning, it could have happened in last fiscal year. please come up to the microphone. don't be shy. there's two there. >> supervisor, the immediate

need came up during the mid-year. had we known about it during the prior fiscal year. >> supervisor cohen: can you tell me what the immediate need was? >> we had a backlog in hiring and filling positions due to the new people soft position changes. this backlog was creating delays and needing positions throughout the department. the need was identified. we worked on making this temporary substitution pending this request to you now for a final permanent substitution. we made the temporary exchange. we're now asking for a permanent substitution. >> supervisor cohen: was this a new hire or is this already an employee for the city and county of san francisco? >> he wasn't a current city employee. he was put into this new class. he has been a city employee for some time. not allowing the substitution would result in his his being

laid off from that position. >> as significantly from my perspective, we have an incumbent in the position. as you all know, we a pretty significant system change last year. we're really trying to adapt to it in a way that fills our field position as quickly as possible. >> supervisor cohen: i guess for me, i don't understand how system change reconciles a hiring for a new employee. >> different work. what's required to do hrm payroll processing it's different. it took us little bit of time to adapt to it. >> supervisor cohen: what is this person's role? >> it's relatively line position payroll clerk. >> it's personnel clerk. >> supervisor cohen: this person serve on this same team or is it

new role? >> it's an upgraded role. >> supervisor cohen: meaning increased duty and responsibilities. >> due to the systems changes and also in the multitude of hiring that we had to process both for our summer programs and day camp programs for correct creation bringing in our summer camp counselors and so forth. responsibilities will increase. >> supervisor cohen: phillip said it may result in the person being terminated. what happens if this does not go forward, what happens to the individual? >> well, i think the person will revert to their prior permanent position. >> supervisor cohen: in terms of salary or revert in terms of job responsibility. >> probably both. >> supervisor cohen: that means this particular duty and function remains unfilled? >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: until we budget for it appropriately and you go through the hiring process? >> i think the purpose of paying

-- we are proposing to make this temporary substitution permanent in this budget. this is the next budget cycle when we realized we had the need. we are bringing it. what we did, because we had the need mid-year, we filled the position to a temporary position mid year. which is not really a typical in a department's personnel system, this doesn't feel to be sort of a unique personnel move. >> supervisor cohen: it's not you're right. you happen to be the first. >> that's okay. i don't mind talking it through. i think we are doing what i think your preference is. which is the next budget substitute, putting more formally the position be substituted into a permanent position. >> supervisor cohen: what i think i have is a nagging sensation it's like you're gaming the system a little bit. we put a person in the position

mid year, then we'll see and back fill it and get it upgraded in the next budget cycle. >> the rules actually give departments a little bit of flexibility to meet programmatic needs. those rules are subject to approval from mayor's office, and department of human and resources. allow position substitutions mid-year within a certain salary band. we couldn't substitute a position -- i don't know the exact salary -- i couldn't substitute a payroll clerk for a new deputy director. the salary bands are similar. we were just making a mid-year decision on the fly that we had to gap that we needed to fill. position substitutions share

with me some of your wisdom and experience. years of experience with this matter. i recognize it is a practice with most departments. we'll see it again as we hear from few other departments today. what do you have to say about all this? >> good morning given supervisors. adopting the budget board approve the annual salary ordinance. which gives the -- when you're adopting annual salary ordinance, the board acknowledges the mayor and board acknowledge, that you want to provide some flexibility for the departments over the course of the year to respond change of business needs. you permit this process called temporary exchanging of positions within the budget. it is policed so that you don't have very dramatic swings in how positions are filled. this is part of the normal business process for the city. i don't see it as abnormal what

the department proposing here. it's part of the flexibility of the board affords departments to manage their budgets and positions. it is a choice though. it is a temporary exchange that's permitted by the board for one year. the department has to seek the board's position to make it permanent. i think that's what the board and departments here doing. thank you. i want to go to the b.l.a. hear if this is customary practice practice in the city and county of san francisco. what reason are you making these recommendations? >> as we identified in the budget. it was a position we had some concern about. only find it was a previously filled position at that level. it is more than the 15% threshold to our understanding.

again, because it is a filled position, we understand -- we have made this a policy matter rather than actually recommendations. >> supervisor cohen: one more time. last part drifted off. >> we recognize this as a filled position. this is a long standing practice the city department, sometimes they'll be identified positions in the budget that we don't think are necessarily the best appropriate use of the position are most appropriate use of the position. when we find out they've been actually temporarily exchanged during the course of the year and are filled and we can't recommend reduction, we still have some concerns about the position itself, we do put it as a policy matter. specifically i want to point out, this is more than 15% threshold. >> supervisor cohen: can you articulate more about the concerns you have about this position? if you want, i can come back if if you have your hand on your

nose. >> with this position, this was a custodian being substituted to a senior personnel clerk in the human resources division of the department. we saw that the department already had two personnel clerks and two senior personnel clerks. >> supervisor cohen: phil, can you justify that? >> we probably hire 600 to 700 people a year. given all our youth hiring and some of our temporary hiring that is seasonal and for camps, we do regular apprentice hiring. we have a number of hiring cycles that happen every year. probably more than most departments. we have significant amount of pressure on our human resources staff. while i think derek can speak to some of the work flow changes caused by the new people system, we were experiencing a rather significant backlog in payroll

processing for vacant positions a was resulting in gardeners and other custodians and recreational staff not getting hired in a less timely manner given the numerous other procedural steps in our hiring process. this was really work flow. we were responding to a work flow need to make sure we con to hire. we have more temporary and seasonal hiring than many departments you'll see today. >> supervisor cohen: i think what's hard for me to make that shift, is that, you went from a custodian to a senior personnel clerk. when i think of custodian, i am thinking someone keeping the grounds and keeping things up. i think of a personnel clerk, they're like in an office. >> correct. sometimes i think last year i came to you and actually asked for additional hr staff to make

sure i have custodians and gardeners and reck stuff. if the work flow gets clogged, we're not going to have the men and women in the field a we need. that's why we made this shift. i think the rush on the roi, the return on investment on processes we get more people in the field more quickly by paying this change. i didn't have -- i would have had the custodian and the additional payroll clerk. i didn't have that flexibility in our budget. we did have a vacant custodian position. that's what the temporary exchange and we're here today to ask that that exchange be made permanent. that's the position a we need at the moment. which is not to say that we don't need additional custodians. in our oater budget, we have made substitution so that we have custodians. it's constantly -- it is little bit. you're responding to where the

work flow gap is at the moment. >> supervisor cohen: so, that means there's gap in on the custodial level? >> what we could have done supervisor in other method to do this, it would have ended up with us in the same place. to have filled that custodial position last year but not to have had the payroll clerk. meaning lot of positions may not have gotten into the field. instead we took the vacant custodians position and made payroll clerk. we made another position substitution, i don't think the budget natural had a problem with to return that custodians position into our budget. it was a temporary change designed to meet mid-year weakness that we had. >> supervisor cohen: you're number two is behind you. i want give my colleagues a

second to ask questions. >> i want to clarify too. we are you're making that change, they have to meet the minimum qualifications of that job classification. it's -- >> of course. >> i want to say too, as former department head, having to deal with this, i understand where you're coming from and trying to fulfill the positions that you have and making sure that the people that are in the organization are fulfilling whatever you need. sometimes it is difficult to work within a combined system. i do see this as something with the department head trying to meet the needs of their department and of course, having minimum classifications. i think it's the safeguard that we need. i don't know that i see a problem with this. >> thank you supervisor. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions? i want to go back to the b.l.a.

you said there were some concerns about the position. i was wondering if based on the explanation from the department head if both concerns were relaxed or still unsatisfactory. >> supervisors, we do hear out the department on this one. we can withdraw the policy recommendation. >> supervisor cohen: okay. you sure? i seen hesitation. we can come back to them. you want to sleep on it? >> i do think -- even though it was beyond the 15% -- >> supervisor cohen: how much beyond? >> 23%. >> supervisor cohen: that's a lot beyond phil. let's hear from the comptroller.

>> just as you're weighing through these choices to highlight another possibility for the board, that past board members taken some times comparable circumstances. at times in the past, faced with this kind of choice, the budget committee has chosen to permit the substitution of the position. meaning you had the department head position authority to do it but has denied new funding to pay for it. which then requires the department to absorb the cost. if you took that path you will be accepting $18,000 of savings as budget analyst recommended but permitting the substitutions can allows the department to move ahead. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. i actually like that. i'm prepared to support the budget legislative analyst recommendation and not substituting this position.

mr. ginsburg. >> i'm very comfortable with that recommendation. >> supervisor cohen: with the recommendation with the substitution but denying the funding? >> we can live with that. we're much more focused on the work, the confusion is, the position itself wasn't tx. there's a temporary position in the budget. it is not 15%. we're happy to absorb it. we do need the position to do the work. >> supervisor cohen: sounds like we've gotten to a resolution. thank you very much. thank you for your flexibility and your willingness. i think it is a good compromise. mr. rosenfeld, do i put this in the form of motion? how do i move forward? >> i think you would be accepting the budget analyst's recommendation for funding on this item but permitting the position authority.

that would be a motion that we would understand from the committee and we'll make sure it gets in the system that way. >> supervisor cohen: i want to make sure that reflects accurately in your notes that you're taking. great. to the budget legislative analyst office. you have remarks? >> you want me to summarize the recommendation? >> supervisor cohen: please. we'll continue for the next one. >> for the recreation park department, we recommend reduction for $1,024,489 in fiscal 18-19. it allow increase fiscal year 18-19. recommends closing out prior year $56,749 for total general fund savings $996,000. also with the policy recommendations, we understand that the department is prepared

to accept our policy recommendation to delete one replacement for 250 extended cab. are little to accept the savings reduction for the upward substitution of the policy recommendations of $18,904 first year and $18,888,000 in the second year but with position authority to do that substitution and then in the second year, our recommended reduction to the budget total $55,755 and all of those are one timesaver -- time savings. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee. >> supervisor yee: can you go through the amounts again? you're saying year one, it will be 1,004,000 -- $1,044,000 that

are one time only. this is what i have? is it one time only. >> that's correct. >> supervisor yee: is there any ongoing? >> only on going will be the policy recommendation for the upward substitution. there's additional one time savings in the second budget year. that does not result in continuation of a cut in the first year. >> supervisor yee: why wouldn't the 18,000 -- that should be ongoing? >> for the policy recommendation, yes. i on going savings starting in year one. you are correct. my summary for the recommendations i did not at

first mention the policy recs. i called them out separately. >> supervisor yee: thank you very much. >> supervisor cohen: any other questions? any other discussion? okay. thank you. >> thank you supervisor. i want to thank the committee and the board budget analyst and also kelly, for their help for preparing the budge. we're comfortable with where we are. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you. we're going to hear next from the planning department. >> can we please take action on the recreation and park department budget? >> supervisor cohen: take action on this budget? >> on the rec and park budget. >> supervisor cohen: i think i heard if if i'm not mistaken, help me out here that we're

going to accept the b.l.a. policy recommendations. we're deleting the 250 extended cab but deny funding. >> correct. accept budget analyst recommendation for the budget. >> supervisor cohen: also accept the b.l.a.'s base recommendations. is there a second for that? seconded by supervisor sheehy. planning. >> i sent an email asking to be moved to friday. >> supervisor cohen: no problem, that it fine. we'll see you tomorrow. >> item number six is related to the planning department. >> supervisor cohen: sir, are you prepared to talk on item six? >> yes, i am.

>> supervisor cohen: thank you. this is the planning code fees for certain permit transportational. >> clerk: amending planning code and fees set forth in ordinance to clarify the fees applicable to projects with no very little construction cost and to change the fees for transportation analysis. >> supervisor cohen: okay, so, i understand that this item -- is it ready to be heard? >> there are few steps that we need to do to complete the item. take it back to planning commission. like to request that it be continued to a day to call the chair. >> supervisor cohen: not a problem. i still need to take public comment on item six. i will open up for public comment. we are discussing item six. if you like to speak on item six, pertaining to the fees of certain permits and transportation analysis. any member of the public.

public comment is closed. thank you very much. i'll make a motion to continue this item to the call of the chair. i only have three people. seconded by supervisor fewer. i want to acknowledge that the house has changed. supervisor yee, supervisor fewer and myself are voting in unanimous. see you tomorrow. thank you. okay, police department. chief scott.

>> good morning supervisor cohen, supervisor fewer and supervisor yee. i want to start by saying i want to thank the b.l.a. for their analysis and i startly by saying we agree with the recommended cut. with the exception of the policy recommendation on staffing. with that, we'll open up for any questions that you may have. i know there were lot of follow-up questions from our previous meeting that you you wanted to ask. we'll take any questions that you ask. >> supervisor cohen: chief, thank you very much. my apologies. is there anything else up to start with your opening remarks. if not we'll go to b.l.a.

let's dive in. b.l.a. folks. >> ada >> ed a madam -- madam chair our recommended reduction. that's fiscal year 18-19. of that amount, 2,000,567 are on on savings. there's 400,000 one timesaverrings. these reductions allows increase of $44 million. our policy recommendations total $4,508,272 in 2018-2019. i recommended reduction to the proposed budget total $600,000

of 19-20. $400,000 are ongoing. these reductions which still allowed increase of 40,279,000 and $1. our policy recommendations total 13 million, 337, -- as i understand it supervisors the police department does concur with our recommended reductions. except for the policy recommendation. that's on page 94 of our report. let me review that with you on page 94. we recommend that you delete 25.65 worn ftes that's annualized to 100 total position. the department is requesting hundred new sworn officers to the operations bureau to increase foot patrol and investigation staffing.

these new 100 ftes are being requested prior to the department conducting a workload analysis to evaluate staffing needs for the purposes of determining necessities of these sworn positions. the department workload analysis to determine how many positions are needed is scheduled to begin in 18-19. as you know, we issued a performance audit report in june. we found that the department has surplus capacity and the department's control units in the police districts. our order recommended that the department develop productivity targets to better warn staff. we found that the actual patrol staff productivity varied between the 10 police districts. on average, fell below the productivity targets.

we recommended -- that is what is recommended by the 2008 police executive research form report. based on our analysis, 200 patrol officers could be reassigned to increase the number of foot patrols or to investigations and or to other critical needs. in addition how audit identified you have to 200 police officers currently performing administrative and other nonpolice functions that could potentially be reassigned to police duties. including patrol and investigations. we recommended in the audit that the police department and controller evaluate which of these positions should be civilianized. department is on schedule to meet the 1971 mandates including the academy graduates. i would emphasize without the requested 100 new police positions, which have not been

sufficient u -- justified at this time. the department will still realize increase 105 available police officers by civilianizing 25 positions filled by sworn staff and as has been proposed in this budget that the mayor has submitted in fiscal year 1 18-19. also in considering the two previously planned academy classes. in summary, we are -- department doesn't agree with all recommended reductions with regard to the policy. they disagree. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor yee.

>> supervisor yee: ms. rose? your policy question here ask for i think 25. >> it's 25 for the first fiscal year 25.65 full time equivalent positions. when you annualize that supervisor, it would amount to 100 positions for each year. 25 for each year but again, annualized -- >> it's 25 in each year supervisor? for 18-19, 25.65, and 19, -- >> supervisor yee: that's 50. >> it's 25.65 in 18-19. does that make sense?

>> supervisor yee: no. >> the budget that you're seeing has partially funded positions in each year because of the hiring date of those positions. the total increase in each year would be 50 new police positions or 100 total new position. >> supervisor yee: this 25 or 26 for 18-19 represents 50? >> right. >> supervisor yee: okay. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer is going to ask a couple of questions. i think your questions for the b.l.a. after this round of questions we're going to pivot to the chief who's get a presentation on why he needs all these officers. >> supervisor fewer: my question is just i understand that the airport is paying for two academy classes. these account for also the two that the airport -- [inaudible]

this is through the new general fund position going into city operations. >> supervisor cohen: chief, take it away. i understand you've got a presentation on why this staff request is need. you have as much time as you need. >> thank you supervisor. i'm going to put this slide up so we can follow along with the why we're requesting what we're requesting. we can respond. first of all, we do thang the b.l.a. for their work. eagree with most of what was recommended searches cuts with exception of the people recommendation. i'll go through this real quick and talk about why these positions are needed. the first recommendation -- you can read along. i'll make this brief as you read along. first recommendation city wide foot patrol. we know that our deployment of

foot patrol has made a difference both in our crime reduction effort which is going really well and also in the visibility and deterrents of crime. as you see on this slide, what we like to do it maintain a foot patrol presence across the city. our current staffing levels were achieved by pulling officers from other units and some of these units, it was painful cuts to pull them away. we felt at the time it was the right thing and the necessary thing to do. our officers will be deployed to targeted areas that are densely populated with businesses and high volumes of traffic. as currently staffed, we don't believe this is sustainable. it results in our inability to consistently staff these areas that we need these foot patrol officers to be in. one such example is third street corridor. supervisor cohen with your district. we constantly struggle with third street corridor with

adequate foot patrol officers. we believe staffing plan will allow us to sustain what we need to maintain a safer city through our foot patrols. also, let me emphasize too that was one of the department of justice recommendations. it was recommendation 40.4. i won't read the recommendation. they suggested that foot patrols be eevaluated for improving community trust and addressing crime. i believe we have done that with the deployment and enhancement of foot patrol. second issue is our staffing issue of the burglary unit. let me go back to foot patrol. >> supervisor cohen: do you have a copy of that document for us? >> yes. >> supervisor cohen: i'm afraid i have an old version. i can send it around to the committee and to the clerk for the public. >> i have copies but i have an

old version of the copy. >> we can take that and copy it and we will -- >> actually do i have copies. >> supervisor cohen: perfect, you can continue. >> as you see, the staffing solution there is 73 ftes to maintain our foot patrol staffing that we currently have. the next issue is the burglary unit. currently, -- >> supervisor cohen: is that the unit district attorney was talking about? is it something separate? >> it's very separate. what we've done in the last eight months is we reconfigured centralized burglary unit to address the burglaries happening in our city and reasonable.

many years ago, we had an investigation bureau where these units was centralized about eight years ago or so, that centralized unit decommissioned. those investigators went to the stations. which at the time, was felt that was the right thing to do. what we have learned since then, when we did that, we really lost ability it tie some of the regional and serial crimes together. we didn't have a unit that was looking at a city wide -- looking at things from city wide lens. we reconfigured this unit in october. we staffed it and this staffing we believe, in order to sustain it, and increase it to a level that really needs to be. we're asking for ten additional ftes to sustain this unit. we've seen some tremendous results with this unit in terms of identifying serial burglars.

we got example after example including just late as this week, arrest where we have identified and arrested individuals that have gone across the city and the region committing burglaries. this increased investigations on various levels leads to a better response and a really more cohesive ability to address some of our property crime. we understand a the pattern across the different regions are very difficult to string together unless you have a centralized unit. this is the reason that we believe it's value added for our department and city and in order to esustain that, that's part of our staffing request. the next one on your sheet is the serial crimes unit. as it relates to violent crime. we're talking about robbery. we have identified since we

started this unit, we have identified robberies and suspects that have not only victimized people here in san francisco but across the bay area. without this uniter it's very -- unit it's very difficult to tie them together. we're looking at 38 ftes. one the things a we did when going back to the foot patrol issue, we had patrol bureau task force. we decommissioned it to staff up our units. we like to start this unit back because there's a need for it. they will investigate high profile and serial cases with sophisticated networks. the idea is to have plain clothes and undercover personnel on serial burglars, serial offenders and build prosecutable cases across wide range of charges. this would be in partnership with the district attorney's

office. again, that 38 fte that we believe it will take to sustain that unit. i want to reemphasize that we did have a smaller version of this unit that we basically decommissioned last year to get it going. that was a tough cut to make. it was something that we felt was necessary. we do really believe that we need to reinstitute this unit and address our crime issues. the next thing on the list is the station investigations team. as i mentioned, when we decentralize investigations many years ago, we replaced that with station investigation teams. which is very important because they have the ability to really understand what's going on at the district level. which is important. right now we do not have a capability to deploy these investigators seven days a week which we believe is really in the good for our city and good

for our service and our responsiveness. the ask here for the station investigations team is 22 additional ftes. with that, we will be able to achieve our seven day staffing. give the community more direct access to the investigate oh -- investigators and district and give them more time to work with the district addressing crime. one of the things that supervisor yee asked for with the property crimes unit that we implemented, it takes staff agto do that. we believe we can sustain that effort. we've seen tremendous results rs from supervisor yee's district. it takes staffing to do that. this will help in that regard as well. on the bottom of the page, outreach officers and it speaks to our homelessness and harm reduction efforts. mainly our healthy streets operation. this is the biggest chunk of the deployment.

95 ftes is what we believe if will take to sustain this effort. as you know, we started the healthy streets operation center in january of this year and in the five zones that we focused our efforts in, we've seen a really tremendous amount of success. there's been some growing pain. we know we're not staffed where we need to be to sustain this effort. if you go into any of these five zones, you can see the difference. post healthy street operation center compared to what it looked like before. embarcadero plaza, the mission district. each one of our districts we've seen -- including this area along market street and union plaza -- we've seen tremendous amount of work to be done it has been done. we can continue to sustain with the proper staffing. with this staffing, what we hope

to do is secure these five key zones and also work along with our other partners in this. homelessness and supportive housing to respond to 311, 911 calls on a city wide level. this added staff will maintain our current staff level at the operation center on a dilly -- daily basis. based on the lessons learned where we are now, that we really need to expand this to include swing shifts so we can address lot of the issues on the night side of things in a more effective manner. this staffing will allow us to do that. this is also a d.o.j. recommendation and very important one. it speaks directly to the need to collaborate as we deal with the homelessness issues in this city. which we know are very complex issues and cannot be addressed by any one single department.

that collaboration is happening. we are asking for the board support for the staffing that it would need to continue this effort and to fulfill not only the d.o.j. recommendation but to keep our streets clean and safe. then the last thing on the list, are the psychiatric emergency response teams. again, this is another d.o.j. recommendation in terms how we address dealing with people in psychological crisis. the idea is that we would have 12 new ftes to staff this unit. we already started to roll this out. we're not staffed the way we need to be. what this will allow us to do provide coordinated efforts and care for frequent uses of the city's mental health services. our officers will work escort dpa two days a week to perform outreach to these individuals that i mentioned. if itp