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 it help to ensure the safety

of our dpa's partners. officers will also respond to 911 and 311 calls while identifying cases requiring and interdisciplinary approach. allowing for consistent communication between sfpd and other city service providers in points of contact. that includes dph, fire department and shf. if you add all those ftes up, it equates to the 250 that we're asking for. we do believe this is very vital in terms us being able to meet the demands that are asked of us. this is separate from the sector patrol. the officers -- they pond to

call to service. that's about 30%. this is separate and apart from that. this will allow us we believe to be successful and addressing these many complex issues our city. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for the policy and explanation. this is the first time i heard it. it's first time it's been presented to this committee. what i see is a policy and i see a request for 250 officers and you kind of created policies to back into 250. what concerns me is, there's no data that's driving this. how do i know city wide patrol needs 60 officers, 8 sergeants and 1 lieutenant. burglary unit needs 10 sergeants. how do we know they don't need two sergeant or six or eight

officers? this is what concerns me just about the policy. what i like about the audit is that at least there's little bit of -- there's a lot of thoughtful analysis and thought that went into the reasoning behind it. let's just start with the audit for example, chief. is there anything about the audit that you wanted to refute or if you had a rebuttal? this is the audit a i'm refe referring it was conducted by the b.l.a. on staffing levels. >> yes, there are some points that we disagree with. i say this with all due respect. with what was mentioned little while ago about 250 surplus officers. report said that we're overstaffed and patrolled by 200 officers.

this calculation resulting in the surplus that was identified included foot patrol. really there's no excess for the foot patrol officers. one of the things to part of your question about foot patrol, there's been studies done years ago about 10 years ago on foot patrol. we're currently conducting through a nonprofit researcher of study on foot patrols now. couple of things about foot patrols. in terms of data, it's really hard to determine how many foot patrol officers needed in a specific area. foot patrols are not necessarily radio call driven. when we put officers in the places where we're putting them like twin peaks where we're having rash of burglaries and

fisherman war, we can look at the crime numbers and one of the measures that i look at is as organization is, what are the outcomes with nose de-- those deployments? this is real life example in twin peaks. ewe saw car break-ins disappeared to zero when we put officers there and we deployed them. same thing with the market street area when we increased our foot patrol. lot of what -- it's very hard to measure prevention. you can't measure what doesn't happen. [captioners transitioning, please stand by]

>> supervisor cohen: -- in december of 2018, in just a few months, you will have 80 officers that will have completed their academy training that will be on the streets. and those 80 new officers will then bring us up to the 1971 mandated in the charter level, right? the charter says that san francisco police department should be at a certain level. so -- and if i'm -- if i'm wrong, please stop me. and we have never been -- well, i shouldn't say never. it's been a long time since we've been at this charter mandate level. what was the last time we were at this charter mandate level? was it ten years ago? was it 15 years ago? we've never reached it. >> supervisor cohen? >> supervisor cohen: yes

chief. >> i believe it was only at one time, and that was in 2009. >> supervisor cohen: and i believe that would have been in one month because of atrition and because moving onto other things. fair enough. okay. so maybe you can help me with a little bit of this math. you and i were talking about this. this is a request for 250 new officers. where are we in terms of the officers that we have that will be out on the streets? in december, it will be 80. where will we be in january -- or is when is the next time that the next academy -- if i'm not mistaken, there are two academy classes actively training officers. what are the total number of officers that these two academy classes will produce, and when? >> okay. i'm going to move part of this to director mcguire. we just started an academy class this last monday.

as i stand here, there are

underway, is that right? >> supervisor, that is our

september class would happen in the calendar year. >> supervisor cohen: right. that's already been budgeted, if i'm not mistaken. that's been budgeted last year, is that right, kelly? >> those are part of our maintenance classes, and so that would include the classes we were talking about just a second ago where we have two classes of 100 people at the beginning of each class -- of those classes. then they attrit out to be 80, approximately, that's how we have it budgeted, and then -- so that is -- that september class is one of those classes, those maintenance classes. >> supervisor cohen: so what is the distinction between a class and a maintenance class. >> so a new class would fund additional positions. >> supervisor cohen: so hold on. i want to talk to the budget. i recall last year approving two academy classes with ed lee. is that right? >> that is correct. they have two academy classes

already budgeted to reach the mayor lee's staffing plan which gets them to 1971 budgeted and funded f.t.e.'s ro. >> supervisor cohen: right. so what i'm trying to understand, the request for 250 new officers, does that include the two previously budgeted academy classes? >> that is correct. so it includes 80 that are coming on-line next year through these two existing funded classes. then, there's a class of 50 proposed for 18-19? the civilianization of 25 position in 18-19, and then two additional academy classes each of the next two fiscal years? one in 19-20, and one in the

third year. >> supervisor cohen: i'm just trying -- you'll be back on monday. kelly, do me a favor. i need you to write that down and have that in a table. >> happy to. >> supervisor cohen: so we can follow this. >> you bet. >> supervisor cohen: this is a very serious issues because when you're hiring officers, this is more than just a one-time expense. this is going to be a cost that grows exponentially as the officer continues to serve san francisco and therefore. thank you -- there after. thank you. this is absolutely incredibly important, and as i said, i'm just trying to understand the exact roundness number of 250, so i'm not quite there, chief. and the document that you provided is actually -- this document right here is very helpful because it helps me understand a little bit as to -- this is, like, best case

scenario. if you had everything that you wanted, this is exactly how you would break people out and deploy your officers. >> correct. >> supervisor cohen: now i have some other questions when it comes to management. and i don't know -- i don't know all of the p.o.a. in the union rules when it comes to management, okay? so are civilian folks able to manage officers or is that only in the purview of the sworn officers to manage other sworn officers? >> civilians can manage other sworn officers. it depends on the unit -- >> supervisor cohen: okay. given these units, you have citywide patrols, burglaries, crimes, outreach, and psychiatric emergency, can a civilian manage this type of operation -- these operations? >> i would say not for these operations listed on these

sheet. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> these are all -- these are all operational units. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> and these are all operational units. now, the psychiatric response team, you know, we're working in partnership with clinicians, but we're not staffed with any clinicians in the police department. we have a commission, but chief of commission, she's educated as a clinician, but she's a police officer. so none of these units, to your question, i don't think would be appropriate for a civilian to be in charge of these units. >> supervisor cohen: so part of the b.l.a.'s recommendation is to, if i'm not mistaken, i think it's 25 -- civilianize 25 positions, is that right? >> and that's specifically no. the budget has 25 civilianized position which could free up another 25 police officers who are currently not serving as police officers. and then you've identified the

81 in the academy who could fill up staffing. what our audit shows is that we identified maybe about 200 police officers that are performing functions that could potentially be civilianized. so in addition to the 25 you see in the budget, we think their definitely other opportunities. we don't have a specific recommendation because we think it requires a close look at what they're doing. but we definitely think that 25 is not the maximum number that could be civilianized. we think there could be many more. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for that clarification. >> so i can speak to that. this is one of the areas where we disagree with the 200 is that could be -- that are deemed nonpolice functions. many of the positions that are identified in that 200, they serve sworn functions that i don't believe and we don't believe as an association they are appropriate for civilianization. by my count, about 68 of those 200 should be reviewed for

civilianization. some of the positions are things like instructors at the academy, investigators that investigate criminal activity, internal to the department, recruiting -- are recruitment officers. and some of those we don't believe are necessarily appropriate for a civilianization, but we do agree that 68 of them definitely should be reviewed. so that's where we have disagreement. and then, another subset of this is that of the 200, there are about 31 officers that are on temporary assignment due to disabilities, either permanent or temporary disabilities due to disciplinary issues, physical restrictions, where they actually cannot function as a full functioning or

full-time police officers right now. so that's included in the 200, as well. and that subset of officers is always going to be a part of our makeup because these things happen. life happens, and people get hurt, they go on family leave and those type of things, and that's going to be something that we can't necessarily civilianize because these people can't perform their duties or regular essential full-time functions of their work -- police work. >> supervisor cohen: what i understand, chief, is that the police department was supposed to have done an internal work study to show how and where they need staffing. and -- does this sound familiar? [inaudible] >> supervisor yee: can i jump in a little bit? >> supervisor cohen: yes, please. >> supervisor yee: okay. i like the line of questioning. >> supervisor cohen: okay. i defer to my colleagues. take it away. >> supervisor yee: no. it's just that i did offer the audit, and i had some questions, similar questions,

and i'll go down on that. and the -- in the last year, i had worked with chief scott to try to form a task force to look at the police staffing. and you know, you and other colleagues supported that notion by allowing us to add $150,000 back into that back process so that it could be supported. unfortunately, it's taken them a while to get started. i think they're almost ready to get started. it's been a year, but -- so that needs to happen. so you're absolutely correct that the police department really, with the police commission, really need to look at what really is the police need, you know, most updated in terms of best practices and so forth. and i think this audit really helps to -- in regards to not

so much what the police staffing needs are, but how it could be improved, the efficiency. so a couple questions around the civilianization piece. first of all, you -- this -- this handout we just received which asked for 250 more officers, is this for just this year? >> no, that's over the two-year -- actually, it's over four years. >> supervisor yee: four years? okay. that's fine. >> exactly. >> supervisor yee: okay. and you said, i think, that part of this 250 is the 25 civilian -- the police officers that were replaced by civilianization, is that correct? >> correct. the budget recommendation has 25 positions that we have identified that can be civilianized, so those officers will return to operations once

the civilianization occurs. >> and -- and the 25 you identified is separate from the 68 or 58 that you mentioned? >> yes. >> supervisor yee: what was the number? i'm sorry. >> yes. >> supervisor yee: what was the correct number? >> i think it was approximately 68. >> supervisor yee: in which you're going to look at it or you're looking at it? >> yes. >> supervisor yee: where are you with that? >> so we just got the report, and we agreed that those are positions that we can definitely look at it and evaluate if those positions are appropriate for civilianization, but we just received the report, as you did, in the past week. >> supervisor yee: yes. so let's say 50 of them will eventually be civilianized; that in these 50 officers that are currently not deployed in

police work, i guess, would be available to do some of the things that are listed here. >> that is correct. >> supervisor yee: okay. so there's still an argument between the 200 and your 58, i guess. i don't -- what's the -- have you come up with a response to the -- not the 200, but the 58? >> supervisor yee, the way our audit was written is we didn't have a specific -- we identified 200 positions that could be considered for civilianization. if they've identified 68, i think that's a really good start in terms of further review. could there be more than that? potentially, but i do have to think that even starting with 68 is walking down that way. so i don't see it as a concept, i see it as a first step in that process.

>> supervisor yee: and then, the 58, i guess -- >> 68. >> supervisor yee: 68, how -- how quickly can you actually move that? >> well, we are -- as you know, with your request, we have the task force going, and my -- my hope is that is that will be a part of this analysis that we're doing. as you know, we've done a lot of analysis on our did you employment, but these positions, we believe we can fold into the overall staffing analysis that we're doing. and i don't have an exact time because we have to get this thing rolling in terms of the task force, but i'm sure we can fold that into that equation. >> supervisor yee: i actually don't think that we have to wait for the task force because this is just about -- this is not training new officers or

anything, it's just -- the need right now, as you mentioned, is to get officers in the street, and there's a potential pool of officers that can do that. and all -- so whether we argue with the 250 over the four years, whether that's a correct number or not -- if it is the correct number, then, we could immediately makeup for some of the 250 through this process. that's what i'm seeing, is that correct? >> well, i don't think it would be immediate because we'd still have to staff -- identify the positions, identify how we can transition them to civilian positions, and then, request a budget so those positions can be staffed. so i don't know how immediate that would be, but definitely, i agree with what was just said. i think it's a step forward, and it's still going to take analysis and the process -- budgetary process has to happen in order for that to be

realized. >> so -- so if -- if part of the recommendations is looking at 200, that could be a savings of money in terms of not necessarily training and getting new officers because you have these officers that can actually do police work. then, it's a matter of figuring out by monday what the reduction of the policy would create. maybe it wouldn't be as big of a reduction because you have to hire civilian positions, and we have to do analysis of that for the 58. so i think there's room to -- for movement with this -- just this particular issue, and we -- and this has nothing to do with argument for the 250. this is more how do you get to

the 250. >> yes, sir. i -- i understand. >> supervisor fewer: they're coming in, yes. so thank you, chief, for your presentation. i also am referring back to the budget and legislative analyst's recommendations and report, actually, of the performance audit of the san francisco police department. so the b.l.a. actually suggests that if you were to move certain sworn staff to a different rotation that we could actually -- it would result in 66 full-time equivalent positions at no additional cost. and i think that your -- you agreed specifically with the recommendation, saying that you would have to meet and confer, and i understand that. but also in 2012, you moved 503 sworn officers from a five-hour shift to an eight or nine hour shift, and i think my husband

might have been one of them, resulting in 16,000 additional officer days in each. so my question is it is impossible to look at this budget without looking at this audit report of efficiency and use of police officers and also how the schedule -- and they even recommend not even going to an eight-hour shift, which i know is a really hard thing for cops, but to switch, actually, to a ten-hour, four-day-on, three-day-off kind of shift which would free up more officers and give you more coverage. so my question to you is have we explored this in a way to meet the additional need that you're requesting of us today? >> we have explored the possibility, and as you all know, we just went through arbitration with our contract negotiation, so that issue was settled through arbitration, and at this time, we cannot move forward with that type of

idea. i think we got the -- i think we'd have to go through the labor process in order to get there, and as of now, it's not on the table now. >> supervisor fewer: but this is something you're planning to put on the table and explore, and are you actively exploring this? >> well, the negotiations have ended, so it's not on the table right now. we're going to have to, you know, discuss this as we move forward. but you know, we're out of the negotiation process now, so it's not anything that we can move forward with at this point. >> supervisor fewer: but chief, it's my understanding that actually the department meets and confers over many issues actually throughout the year, and it's not -- so it doesn't just happen during contract negotiations; that you actually meet and confer over a lot of things on a regular basis. so would these -- this be a

topic for meet and confer, considering that we could end up -- and we're not even saying taking away the ten-hour shift, we're just saying switching it to a four-three instead of the five-two or whatever it was. so actually, that would give us an equivalent of 66 full-time positions at no additional cost, which, to me, is pretty tremendous. and then, it's impossible to look at this budget without looking at some of the other recommendations that the b.l.a. report states so clearly in this report, that actually -- that arrests are down and investigation overtime are up, and -- up by 60%, i think -- or 70%, and arrests were down by, like, 30%. and also, i think it's also impossible to look at this

budget request without looking at the fact, also, that the b.l.a. report also states that time responding to calls on average should be 35. we are at 27. in some districts, we are at 22. so what you're telling me doesn't really -- i mean, this budget request for more positions is really not justified from this report alone. and i think that i understand the need that foot patrols do actually -- when i'm looking at this report, and i'm hoping that all my colleagues have read this report thoroughly because it is impossible to look at these budget requests without comparing them to the b.l.a. recommendations of this very, very extensive report that took so long to do. but i feel that it's pretty thorough and opened my eyes to some of the issues, i think that when we talk about

coverage, and we talk about need, that actually, some of these recommendations around overtime costs, about productivity, efficiency, is somewhat tied sometimes to the scheduling of how people are scheduled, but also about our use of scheduling or our use of sworn police officers. and they did give a recommendation of approximately 202 -- i am glad to see that you agree that 68 of them actually could be civilianized. >> well, what -- i want to be clear on what we believe that those are worthy of definitely taking a look at. it needs to be assessed is what we're saying. but i would like to address the -- also, the percentage of time spent on calls for service, which is another area where we disagree with the b.l.a. report. it suggests that overall, that time spent we're responding to calls for service is 27%. we believe, based on the

controller's analysis and the report -- the staffing analysis report that the controller's office did, that that percentage is higher than that, somewhere between 30 and 35%, and i'll let director mcguire explain. >> supervisor fewer: and i think the national average in the b.l.a. report is 35%. does that mean, just for clarification, that 35% of a police officer's shift, like, a ten-hour shift, 35% of that time is devoted to -- should be devoted to service calls? is that correct? >> correct. >> supervisor fewer: okay. so this does not account for self-initiated activity, meaning, traffic violation stops, regular patrol duties, all those kind of things, and i think that also when the chief spoke last time, he mentioned that because of all these new things that you have -- like, the camera things, you have to upload it and all that kind of

stuff, and you said that can take up to 15% of your time. if you got that wrong, please correct me, so we're looking now at 50% of an officer's day, so if you could take a little bit about an officer's time. >> so director mcguire has the slides and will explain what you're looking at. >> supervisors, catherine mcguire. i do have a slide on the overhead that shows the 2016-17 actual time consumed by calls -- responding to calls citywide and by district for the police department. so as you can see, the controller's office looked at not only calls for service, that next purple bar is self-initiated time, and that last blue bar reflects administrative tasks. the balance of that 25% is unobligated patrol time, so

that's the opportunity that we have to do community engagement and problem solving. so the -- essentially, this was 16-17. staffing changed during the course of -- from 16-17 to now, and so the controller's office then reran what our staffing levels were compared to the actual calls for service time spent and determined that we're probably around 33% of our time obligated to calls for service. now, the discrepancy we feel with the b.l.a. is simply that they included more people that don't actually have the primary responsibility of responding to calls for service, they have other duties at the district stations, and so that would bring our average down. so they spend no time on calls for service, so of course that's balanced with officers who are spending more time on calls for service. >> supervisor fewer: you're saying that that slight nuance

in job performance duties has skewed their data. >> how many officers do you have that don't respond to calls for service? >> so you have a captain's staff, which usually, a captain's staff does administrative functions. you have officers that drive the wagons. you have school resource officers, housing officers. some of our foot patrol officers, they can respond to calls for service, but traditionally are not dispatched -- they do not affect a car, or rao car whose primary duty is -- radio car whose primary duty is to respond to calls for service. >> supervisor fewer: for the b.l.a., would you like to respond? >> we did have a couple of differences that we were looking at slightly different time periods in terms of how

the controller and i looked at it, which is going to give slightly different results. there's two other pieces to this, which is the number of officers who are assigned to districts were not in car patrols is a bit of a discretionary number. we did list both numbers in our report, but there's some discretion on now noncar patrol officers are assigned to police districts. the other thing i would say is however you look at these numbers, what we found is that they are entirely within the benchmark that was in the 2008 police review report. none of it showed that there was an insufficient number of staff in the police districts. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much for that clarification. so the numbers you just showed me, i think the most astounding thing was the numbers on self-initiated activity.

so that means traffic stops, 8% of their day is those type of things. is that my -- am i reading that right or am i reading that wrong? >> so the self-initiated -- put that slide back up. the self-initiates activity, you can go through the overhead again, the -- -- >> supervisor fewer: purple. >> the purple column, yes, ma'am, is the self-initiated activities, so the traffic stops and those things that the officers initiate on their own. >> supervisor fewer: and then, the blue is again? >> the blue is going to be -- the administrative time is blue. so for instance, on the citywide scale, if you account -- if you count up the numbers, you have -- you know, 75% of the officer's time is spent on those three issues or three areas, so 25 -- that leaves 25% of the time for what we call unencumbered time or obligated time. that can be used for community engagement and problem solving

and those type of things. there is an element in policing of -- i like to call it preventative policing where just being present in an area has been shown to be impactful in terms of reducing crime. so -- >> supervisor fewer: yeah. i think that's what is sounding to me -- as i looked at the purple line, i'm thinking that is the officers on patrol. those are the officers that are driving around our districts, on viewing things, visible to the public as during patrol times, and getting to know and actually doing community service, also. just seeing what's going on and familiarizi familiarizing themselves with the district. >> can i just, real quickly, supervisor? >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> partially, so that purple column represents self-initiated activity, so if i on view a crime in progress, and i'm going to then enter

that in the c.a.d. system, we're able to track that time. the unobligated time where officers of this stage are driving around on patrol or they're not obligated to anything, but they're out and about, or they stop, and you know, engage with a community member, it's a little bit harder to track that unless the officers put it in their c.a.d. >> supervisor fewer: oh, absolutely. >> but those times are actually used for those types of activities, as well. it's easier to track when they actually see something and they act on it, but there's other times. i just wanted to point that out. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, chief. i think since you're coming back monday, if you could give us a hard copy of what you just showed us, that would be great. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, supervisor fewer for your thoughtful questions. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, supervisor cohen. i just want to get clear on how we're studying how many officers we need because we have a b.l.a. report, and we

have the controller's car sector patrol staffing analysis, and they're telling us two different things. so if we're going to be talking about public safety and keeping our -- the citizens safe, i think we really need to get on the same page about how we're looking at this. so i would like to know what the controller's report said and how does that align with the b.l.a. report. i don't know if we can have the controller answer that or the mayor's budget office. >> supervisor cohen: we can -- let mr. rosenfield respond. >> the scope of our work and the budget analyst's is different. there's a whole host of other issues that warrant review in the department, of course, that are not sector patrol, including other functions in district stations like with deets and other things, and then entirely other parts of

the department that aren't in patrol, like administration and others. so our review is sector control, which is a component of what the budget analyst's reviewed, but their scope is wider. i don't know that our findings are different between our office and the budget analyst. i think generally speaking, the data, we're finding that when we review sector patrol, the staffing levels, given recent graduates, allow the department for sector patrol to approximately meet the natural benchmarks which are between 30 and 35% of their time. >> supervisor stefani: okay. well, here's my concern. the b.l.a. included approximate trell on special assignments, which we have -- patrol on special assignments which we've just heard that can't be pulled for certain things in the city,

so i just want to make sure we're not inflating the numbers on that. >> supervisors, actually, the b.l.a. audit and the controller's office report are not that far apart, as ben mentioned. you know, the subtle differences were sector patrol. the subtle differences, the issue that we're having is the 200 officers that they're suggesting can be redeployed. the concern is that's based on the 27.5% calls for service that they identified. if you start taking out those, they actually also looked at -- they ran the numbers twice, so they ran the numbers including those school resource officers, housing officers, and other types of assignments at the district stations, and that is what resulted in that lower 27.5% number. then, they also ran it excluding those. and that was a bit closer to that, between 30 and 35% range. so that -- again, they're not very far apart at all.

and -- but then, that also brings down that 200 number much lower. and they were suggesting a 35% target, whereas by the -- in that 200 number, the issue that we have there, as well, is that the -- the audit report also suggests that we set that target, not -- not necessarily 35%, but at the discretion of the chief of police and with consultation among stakeholders. >> so supervisor, if i can add, let me -- and i think this is -- what i'm about to say is the part that it's much harder to wrap our minds around. there's an element of policing that -- we love to be data driven, but to be data driven is really a reactive form of policing. we don't want to wait until we have a crisis and then look at the data and say oh, now, we need all these cops. we need all these officers, and i think that's kind of how we're driven in our society

right now. we want to be proactive on these things. for instance, the work that we're doing in the healthy streets operation. the healthy streets operation center takes a great deal of interaction and time to get done what we need to get done. we have officers that they're not just being reactive, but they have to get out there and build relationships with the individuals that need us, and that takes time. it's not necessarily call driven, it's not necessarily crime driven. if you have a tent encampment, a lot of work goes into building the collaborative group, to get individuals to the place where they will accept help. there's a big component of that that takes a lot of time, and it takes visiting people and building relationships and building relationships in order to do this compassionately and properly. you're not going to find that on any data sheet.

we know the need is there. we see the results when we do it the right way, and we see the results when we don't do it the right way. some of these things are very hard to grapple trying to tie that to things like a call for service. once we get the call for service, to be quite honest with you, we failed, and now we're reacting. and what i'm submitting to the board and to the public and to anybody that's listening to me right now, i think we can be better than that. i know it's hard because we're talking about public dollars, and we're asking for a lot, but where we want to be is be in a position where we're proactive and preventative, not reactive, because we've lost. right now, we're reacting to car burglaries. the number had to get to 30,000 a year before we said we've got a crisis on our hands. some of staffing that we're asking for is not necessarily data driven, but it's very much

in the spirit of preventing these things from happening in the first place, and you will hear me say that over and over again. >> supervisor stefani: thank you for that. i think we're always referring to the number of 1,971 which is a voter driven initiative 21 years ago. i think we met that once. i just want to make sure that when we're looking at any numbers that flow from those reports, that we take all of that into consideration, so thank you. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: yes. well, i'd like to support -- >> supervisor cohen: i was going to say, turn your mic on. we can't hear you, but it's on now. >> supervisor sheehy: okay. thank you. you know, in my district since i've been on the board, i feel like that we've been, in many parts of the district, in an

almost crisis situation. just talking about sector cars, we looked at the mission, well, 43% of their time is spent responding to calls, which is above the national average and t at a level that is too high for them to effectively do their work. eight calls would be an actual crime in process where someone physically threatened just moments after that, and then, you have someone who's a victim of a crime who's waiting for an officer to respond after the situation has stopped. so somebody's been mugged, the person's run off. they wait there, you know, hours. i talked to officers who could not get to those calls over an entire shift, over an entire shift. and so then when i hear from constituents that their car was broken into or their house was broken into, and they did not

see an officer for several hours, it's not because officers were sitting at a coffee shop, they were responding to other calls. so from my perspective, the one thing that i've seen -- and we've seen -- we've seen an increase in property crimes, we've seen burglaries, we've seen car break-ins. the thing that i've observed is we do not have enough officers on the street. we have this fake number that was based on a ballot measure 24 years ago that did not include staffing the airport or staffing treasure island. we now have a different and improved set of active strategies, which i'm very supportive of. i've seen foot beats make a difference in the castro where we do have a serious homeless problem. i talk to my beat officers. they know the individuals who are on the streets, the regulars that are there that we have incredible difficulties getting off the streets, but

they know them, and they can separate that out from people who are newly in the -- in the area who are being credibly disruptive. the healthy streets campaign, this is how policing should be done, and also frankly, the psychiatric intervention. we have multidisciplinary teams that include d. ph, that include the department of homeless outreach workers. frequently includes d.p.w. folks, as well. this is so much more sophisticated that we're addressing these problems than it was when i first came into office. but it takes staffing. we cannot do this kind of innovative policing where we are trying to humanely respond to people who are in dire straits out on the streets unless we have people that are adequately staffed and trained.

and i was to commend the department for this innovatition and leadership in doing this. i think it's outstanding. i also want to go to the data driven piece. when we -- when we start talking about arrests just being a metric, on one hand, i will sit on conversations where we don't want to build a new jail, which i am supportive of, and we don't want to put people in jail if we don't have to, and we're sitting, talking about arrests, i want to echo what the chief said. we don't want to be reacting to crime, we want to be preventing it, and i have seen, twin peaks, you know, that example was huge. i see it in delores park, where we have officers assigned. it's not just deterring crime, it's changing the entire feel of the park. when we had our incident a year ago in august, that was a place where gangs were fighting over who was going to control part of delores park for the purpose

of selling drugs. the decision was made by the department, by the community, that this was not gang turf, this was a public park that was there for families and communities -- and the community, and that has changed, but the way we did that was with deployment of officers, and if we don't deploy the resources, we're not going to get the out comes that we want. and you know the fact that virtually no one feels like they can park their car on the street without fear of getting it broken into, that's not how we should be living as a city. so for me, this is the choice. i hear from constituents all the time that this is one of their top three issues. i do agree with the chief, we have been on a negative trajectory, and i see the curve starting to bend. and as we bend the curve and start to get a positive trajectory, we take our foot off the gas. we don't give our leadership in

the department the resources and tactics that are necessary to succeed. we're trying to do something different with this chief and we're trying to get away from catching bad guys and locking them up, which is not a positive out come, but actually having resources that are engaged with the community, that are engaged in multidisciplinary teams that deal with some of the hardest issues we face, and really prevent people from going to jail. i hope my colleagues are not looking at this as a place we can get extra money, but actually trying to make sure we have resources available to do the job that our residents keep telling me they want done, and they want done better, and they want done completely. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. you have a question for the controller -- i have a question for the controller or the budget director. what are the costs for 250 officers in year three? year four?

>> i believe, and the budget looks at the department, correct me, but a class of 50 officers is about $7 million. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. seven officers -- >> 50 officers. >> supervisor cohen: excuse me. 50 officers, $7 million. >> they might refine it. >> first of all, supervisor cohen, we're only adding 150 officers. i had a slide, and it was in my presentation last week, that breaks out that 250 that you had requested, so i know that kelly is going to be presenting that to you, another breakdown, but it's 150 new positions over four years. >> supervisor cohen: 150 or 145? >> 145. >> supervisor cohen: so you want to add 145 new positions, and what is the cost of adding

145 new positions? >> it's approximately 21 million. >> supervisor cohen: right. so let's get back to what we're talking about on the budget committee, let's talk about the numbers. so we're talking about approximately $21 million, and let's put this in perspective. we've got home health care workers that many people have also advocates for, they're asking for $15 an hour, and they are asking for $34 million. we're talking about $21 million to add 145 new positions, and kelly, correct me if i am wrong, it does include retirement and benefits? >> yeah. in the budgeted costs there, it does include retirement costs on behalf of the city, however, the long-term retirement obligations for the entire life

of the officer are incorporated into our five year financial plans and included in the deficit should be officers be added as staffing. >> supervisor cohen: okay. so the other thing this body needs to take into consideration is the growing cost of health care. we've done our best in terms of forecasting and we're look at the scenarios that the actuarials have presented for us on what those costs are going to be. and i believe whatever is projected, we're going to be -- behind trying to keep up with the cost of health care is going to be very debilitating. so to the chief, and my colleagues, i understand the desire to add new positions, from my perspective, i'm looking at this through a long-term lens, that this is a huge budget reallocation and request, and a huge cost to the city. my apprehension is i haven't

been convinced that 145 is the -- is a magic number. it's a round number, but i don't know it's where we need to be. what i propose is maybe approving one academy class and cutting another, and putting that other academy class on reserve, so that you can come back and think about it methodically. perhaps now that we are at this 1971 level, we don't want to be having an overabundance of officers. it's very expensive to carry there. another thing is many officers don't live in the city. there are a lot of things that i think factor in this decision, and we've been deliberating on this for a long time. i think we're going to need over the weekend. chief, keep your phone on. b.l.a., keep your phone on. i'm going to move the conversation forward, and the next department we're going to

hear from is the city attorney's office, but we are going to keep this conversation open, and we will see you on monday. >> all right. >> supervisor cohen: thank you to the police commission, and thank you to kelly cohen. i will be presenting the department's slides that they presented just so i'm very clear. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: can i ask for one data number? can we get the numbers of crime, attach a cost to assault, to burglaries, is there some way to get some data on that because our taxpayers are paying either way, and they can either -- we can either provide individuals to be on the street to prevent crime or we can have our residents of this city actually paying to repair car windows, to replace items stolen in burglaries, to pay for health care costs from assaults and other crimes. so i think we need to put that

in balance and weigh the scale both ways. 'cause i hear from my residents, hey, i'm paying taxes, and i'm not being protected. and i'm a victim of a crime when i'm having to pay when there should be somebody preventing crimes. so we are talking dollars and cents. >> there are published reports, supervisor, and we will provide those. we will get those. >> supervisor cohen: thank you very much. thank you for humanizing that, supervisor sheehy. okay. so there's no action on this. mr. clerk, do we need to take action on this or can we just bring them back on monday? >> clerk: there's no action on this. >> supervisor cohen: okay. yes, ben? >> just one suggestion would be while you're here would be to accept the budget analyst's base recommendations again, and we can again input those over the weekend. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisors, supervisors, i'd like to make a motion to accept the b.l.a.'s baseline recommendations which is the department is in agreement

with. if i can get a second on that. second by supervisor yee, and we'll take that without objection. [ gavel ]. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. okay. more to ucome, more fun. all right, dennis herrera, the floor is yours. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. we are here to discuss as a follow-up to last week's meeting, i think there's really one -- only one item of disagreement between the budget analysts and our avenues, aofft has to do with request for additional f.t.e.'s to handle conservatorship and the transfer from the district attorney's office to the city attorney's office that will occur on january 1, 2019 by virtue of this board's action. as you will all recall, we did not seek out this work. we were asked to take it on by

this board, and we are happy to do so. and we have been in communication with the district attorney's office to find out the level of the work since your legislation passed, and what we have determined is there are approximately 500 cases of work that are handled by the district attorney's office and it's our professional judgment that based upon that, that we -- and we made a request, that we need two attorneys and one legal assistant to perform that work. our initial request was that we would have two additional attorneys and a paralegal, and that work would start on january 1, 2019, and after consultation with -- with the mayor's budget office, it was determined, and we said we could live with having one attorney come on on january 1, 2019, and one occur on july 1, 2019, and that the -- in terms of paraprofessional