>> good morning, supervisors. adam, the director for the city administrator's office. as naomi kelly mentioned, we have a rigorous process for budget development that we work through with our departments, all 25 of them. each year we ask them what their proposals are. we also, of course, provide the instructions that are provided by the mayor's office and ask what actions, cuts, reductions that they would offer, if we had to take them. we do regular check-ins with each of the divisions on a monthly basis to monitor their operations, their budget and to basically see how the pace of expenditures are progressing, along with reviewing all of their positions, status of them, plans for filling. general response, which would not be surprising for most departments, is that almost all of them will always tell you they don't have enough all of the things they're asked to do. >> supervisor mandelman: right. okay. and then, i mean, what this

raises -- it seems like by the annual budget process could be an opportunity to sort of go back and look at all of the stuff that sort of built up in the city and think about each of, you know, we don't do zero-based budgeting. but think through kind of what our priorities are and i think what the mayoral budget instructions were kind of encouraging, maybe with that kind of a sort of searching within various departments. and yet what one day into this, i think what we're seeing is that things are holding flat or in a lot of cases new creations getting -- new positions getting created. 7.7% increase in f.t.e.s since 2015, which actually might not be that bad, given we were coming out of recession. i would be curious to see those numbers over a ten-year, where were we before the last recession and what is -- is there sort of an ideal workforce

for local government. but also, you know, the growth in spending, the 32% increase in spending over that five-year period. and as we now possibly, i know our bucket director is very -- budget director is very worried that this can't go on forever and we're talking about adding a fair number of positions, if you look through all of these departments. possibly as we're on the precipice of, you know, tougher financial times. so just for me as a new member of this committee, it's interesting to see that in this moment, when i know the pressure was to try and sort of hold the line a little bit and prioritize maybe a very few high-priority areas where we would grow, that there's kind of across-the-board, it seems like, growth in a lot of different areas. so that's just an observation. thank you. >> thank you.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any comments, questions? thank you very much for your presentation today. and answering all of our questions. next we have up the office of technology information and i believe we have ms. linda. can you spell that for me, please. okay. mayor's office, will you take note of the spelling. i think we received correspondent where her name was misspelled. thank you very much. miss cruell. >> good morning.

and also talking with you about our new initiatives. i'm the director of the department of technology. so i've provided you with my slides and all t-also some notes. it is 18-point font, so i hope you're able to read it. i also have a one-page for you, that is our strategic plan. it really does map out for you our goals, objectives, our guiding principles, as well as our work that we'll be doing this year. oops. so the department of technology's mission is to provide reliable, innovative, secure business solutions that support and empower our city departments and agencies. we provide a wide range of services. and this slide shows us it at work, delivering innovation

through our civic innovation team, excellence in communication and media, with our sfgov team. contributing officer safety with our public safety system, implementing radio systems and radio communications and alerting systems and camera systems throughout the city. and building fiber infrastructure and secure and redundant data center to support our business mission. the department of technology's strategic goals is divided into a five focus areas. these goals align with the mayor's strategic plans, for the city, as well as coit strategic goals. so, first, building future proof technologies, that are sustainable, ensuring compliant and secure systems, achieving operational excellence and high performance and productivity. and collaborating and innovating

and partnering with our departments and our business community to foster innovation. and, finally, and most importantly, supporting a dynamic workforce, that is engaged, loves technology, and is all about excellent customer service. d.t.e.s expenditures and initiatives are aligned with these strategies. so under future-proofing technologies, installing the city's next-generation network is a very large initiative, funded by coit that will be a multi-year project to modernize our main communication systems. this also goes along with replacing the city phone system, to improve mobility and decrease -- significantly decrease costs and closing the digital divide, with internet access to affordable housing. in our compliance and secure

focus area, we are focused on delivering risk assessments to city departments, so they understand their cybersecurity risks, the highest priorities in the city for protection and we build information systems and technologies around these systems to protect them. and also very important is unifying our cyber incident response and recovery. working together as departments when there is an event, making sure that we're responding as one city. and we're making sure that the -- any mitigation and any remediation are lessened by our good cooperation and communication during an event. in operational excellence, just a few -- as you've already talked about, building data as a service, so there is access to data, easy access to data. this is very much what the justice program is about.

it is really a program, not a project, to give departments access and the ability to view, query, report out and share information across an ecosystem. also we'll be supporting 49 south van ness permit center operations with technology, as well as systems. and that's an exciting effort, that is a high priority for the department of technology and we are very focused on its success. in collaboration and innovation, we'll be creating new opportunities and developing new models for innovation partners. and really most importantly creating a culture of innovation in the city. projects and programs are great, but really what will make the difference is that innovative culture and the team is really looking forward and reaching out to come up with methods and

sharing that will build these best practices. and, finally, our dynamic workforce. we plan to offer technology skills academy, that will improve skill and productivity with technology into the future. [bell ringing] i will speed up. d.t.e. business services are a collection of different services that provide benefit to the city business functions. this is an excellent way to look at our costs and where we are investing, because technology is an investment. so where are we investing in technology. this breakdown shows you the percent used in each one of our areas of service. [bell ringing] i also shared with you what the industry projects, in terms of what our percentage should be in each of the run, grow and transform areas of a budget, an i.t. budget. our run is higher than industry,

and our grow and transform is lower than industry. so we ask ourselves a question, how can we become more in line with industry, how can we make those investments that will grow us over time. it also allows us to compare our percentages with industry leaders and ibm is projecting cyber security investment from 9% to 13%. and we are investing around 3%, so this is definitely a growth area for new investment. technology uses increasing in the city. of course, this is the good news. because whenever we improve our business processes with technology, we're lowering costs, improving productivity. and what you can see over three years is that the total i.t. budget for the entire city has increased 19%. the d.t.e. budget, as a portion of -- 20% of the overall spend is increasing 7%.

with regard to staffing, there's a 4% increase in city technology staffing over three years. and the 7% decrease in d.t.e. staffing. so as we look at positions and you're asking about vacancies and new positions, there have been no increases to d.t.e. staffing last year or this year. we do have vacancies. these vacancies are in the process of being filled. interestingly we have filled and taken 88 different h.r. actions this year. that's a tremendous amount of work and we certainly appreciate g.s.a.h.r.'s partnership that help us try to bring this workforce on. of course, our area is very competitive and it's difficult to hire here in the bay area. but we are doing an excellent job of bringing the right people on, it may just take us a while. we do have 22 hires in progress right now, whether through an

exams process or interviews. and we are refactorring and reallocating 12 positions. so you asked about performance measures. and we truly believe if you can't measure, you can't improve it. so we measure and monitor many of our services, most importantly our availability of the network and our infrastructure. we also have 44 real-time dashboards, that are sharing -- are shared with our client base around costs, licensing, and service delivery. and we also have project dashboard, that show project schedule, upcoming activities and financials. and then we also do user feedback surveys. so we can gauge our usefulness from our help desk and services. and we actually are rating 79%

net promoter score. and the industry average, for technology, is 58%. so we are quite pleased with our performance around answering questions and being of service to our clients. so i appreciate your time today. thank you for your interest in the department of technology. if there is any topic that you would like me to go into further or have another conversation, even offline, i'd be happy to do that. just please contact me. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. president yee. >> president yee: thank you, chair fewer. this is pretty straightforward question. the question related to justice. on page 5 in your graph, -- i guess graph. where would that funding be parked? >> page 5. >> that would be under new investment. >> president yee: new investment. >> right it is funded by

koit and we are counting those types of, what we call a capex cost in new investment. >> president yee: that's part of the 5%? >> yes. >> president yee: or separate? >> that's part of it. yes. >> president yee: okay. and how much was -- would that equate to? >> it's around $3.15 million. >> president yee: what were they spending the year before? >> what were they spending the year before? they were spending around -- oh, around $800,000. >> president yee: okay. thank you. >> i have a follow-up question on justice. you know, i note that the justice project is so large that it really counts as its open division in the budget and your budget. and if we pass this budget, as is, we would have allocated more than $10 million in three years to this initiative. and obviously technology improvements are worthwhile. i feel this is such a large

commitment that we have not yet seen a return on this in our investment in this. i'm wondering whether or not you can give me an idea about how this program is progressing, whether or not we're on track. i know president yee has been very dillent in continuing to ask about this. i just feel like we haven't seen our return on this investment. and whether or not we have cooperation and participation from our criminal justice agencies that are responsible for putting the information into justice. >> those are excellent questions. of course, we ask ourselves those exact question on every one of our projects. what is so important to understand about justice, is it's really not a project, it's an environment. it's actually a software system that allows people to cooperate and it's a hub that allows people to share data. fortunately and to your point about value, the team has been able to develop web applications that give the department even greater access to the data.

so the data comes into the hub, it -- you know, it gets combined with other data and then it goes back out to their own business systems. so that's value number one. value number two are the programs and applications that the justice team has built, that give them even more access to the data, special ways to yeary , ad hoc reporting. there's a learning, there's a list of at least eight different applications that have been built on top of that hub to offer real value. i can send awe list of those. so, you know, this will mature. we really need to take a step backwards. i have to caution us on getting too anxious to see a fabulous new business system. we really have to fix the data and ken talked about that, where we must move the data systems off of the main frame. it's a big piece of work. it will take time.

and that's what koit is funding next year. >> supervisor mandelman: is your department involved in the building department's permit tracking program? >> yes, we are. >> supervisor mandelman: that's another project where it seems like, gosh, the city has been working on this for a very, very long time. why does it take the city so long to get these systems up and running, in a way that are workable and useable for users? >> do we have like four more hours. >> supervisor mandelman: give us a teaser. maybe we'll have you back for a wholetary hearing on that. >> the department of technology manages the contract for the building -- the building

department's new permitting system. and it has taken a while. and it has been a process. and much of this also is around any number of factors that are risk factors around a project. you know, there are easily a dozen key risk factors factors n you're implementing a commercial office shelf project, software product. it can be around data, it can be around underperformance, can be around business knowledge. it can be around requirements definition. so all of those things contribute to how well a project will execute. so i can tell you that in the last three years, two and a half years, that d.b.i. has done an excellent job defining requirements, demeaning over 3,000 requirements, over 235 use cases. it is a very straightforward program to deliver business value and to deliver a functional system. and it is in progress right now.

so how that project moves forward will be determined to a great extent on how testing happens, how the user testing happens and its success. and that's how we gauge how well a project is moving forward or where there are risks and problems. >> supervisor mandelman: how close to down on the d.b.i. project are we? >> well, you know that's such a great question. you know, with technology projects "done" is a relative term. so done in this case, done is clearly defined as a system that will work in production for permitting. it must not fail. it must be reliable. it must calculate fees correctly. it must make sure that it is not delaying permit production. so that is done. and when we reach that point, the project will be done. >> supervisor mandelman: and we are there or we are not there? >> we're not there right now. >> supervisor mandelman: do you have an estimate? >> no, i don't.

>> supervisor mandelman: okay. >> it's done when we deliver the production system. moving a project like this into production, before it is ready, causes -- >> supervisor mandelman: i get that. how long has this project been in the works? >> i'm new. but i believe it's been since 2010, 2012. >> supervisor mandelman: a long time. >> 2011. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. are you -- are you working with d.p.h. on their data systems? department of public health? >> i'm supporting them, yes. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. because we've had hearings with the department of public health, where their inability to manage to collect and manage data in ways that would be helpful to them and to us as policymakers has come up. have those -- would those be conversations -- i mean, just sort of getting a handle on that. would those be conversations that would involve your

department? >> yes, they would. thank you for asking. so we have recently hired a chief technology officer, who is responsible for enterprise applications and data. has extensive experience and came to us from kaiser. and 20 years' experience and he has already started talking with them about ways to architect their environment that will help them move forward in a standard and useable way for many departments. so it's how you architect this determines what the product is that you'll get out. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. >> supervisor fewer: i think we could have a whole hearing. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah. it's frustrating for all of us. and for the residents of san francisco to have so many areas where our information technology seems to be not doing the work that it needs to do. and i'm not laying that at your

doorstep. >> we have so many tech companies, too, it's really weird. man all right. i'm done. >> supervisor fewer: i see that you're flat on your f.t.e.s, remains flat. however, i see that you're allocating five positions to admin. thatted a dmin, city administrator's office? >> correct. >> you're adding five positions. >> no, no. positions were transfer from d.t.e. to admin. >> you transferred five to admin. good to know. i see that you're -- you also have reallocated 12 positions within your department, is that right? >> no. tiff 12 right now that are in the process of being defined for highest need. so as we bring on new talent, as we look at how we're being funded this year, we need to

make sure that we are staffing accordingly. and we also know where our gaps are in our service delivery. so we will be moving those positions and defining those positions as request to fill very shortly. >> supervisor fewer: okay. because you are hiring 22? >> they are going through. >> supervisor fewer: you have the additional 12? >> that we would be using for attrition, but honestly we need to hire them tomorrow. >> supervisor fewer: how long have you had the vacancies? >> crosses a number of different time spans. what happens to us, honestly, is if we lose a key position like a network engineer, we must hire a network engineer right away. some positions that have been open longer, probably were not as mission critical as others. so when we have only limited resources to do our hiring, we have to put that to the highest

priority. >> supervisor fewer: i understand. we hear this a lot from positions. >> it's tough. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. thank you for answering our questions. oh, did you want to comment on the five positions actually being transferred to admin? >> ken, deputy city administrator. i just wanted to clarify. those five positions are the five positions discussed by city administrator. program transfer from d.t.e.p. >> supervisor fewer: that you're including in your fiscal year '19-'20. i was wondering. i was going to ask you that. that's great. okay. folks, i know that many people are here to speak on our wonderful affordable housing bond. and that was actually item number -- madam clerk?

2, 3 and 4. okay. so we are still preparing some amendments for items 2, 3 and 4. however, i think people are here specifically to talk about in support or not in support of the housing bond. so what i would like to do now is to ask madam clerk to read items 2 -- just pause on item 5 and 6, this grilling of departments or the oral review of departments. and then call items 2, 3 and 4. allow for general public comment. however, i would like you to know you may only comment on items 2, 3 and 4 once. so if you would like to save your comments until after the amendments are proposed on the

housing bond, then my apologies that you will have to wait longer. and so this is how our afternoon is going to look. i hope people brought sleeping bags and pajamas. no, just kidding. at 1:00, we will take -- hopefully as close to 1:00 as possible, take a break for lunch and your needs. and then we'll spend 30 minutes doing that. and then we will come back. hopefully we will have the amendments in hand. if we do, when we come back, recess back, that is the first thing we'll take up. if they are not ready yet, we will continue with our department briefings. so again to just make it somewhat clear we are going to open items 2, 3, and 4, which are the housing bonds, without amendments.

for a public comment. you may comment if you would like on the housing bond, but be aware if you comment on the housing bond now, you will not be able to comment once the amendments are introduced. so i am going to ask -- and then again we are going to break for lunch and bioneeds and then we will come back and we will continue to hear these wonderful preparations from our departments. okay. madam clerk, could you please read items 2, 3 and 4. quarterbacking. [reading agenda item] [reading agenda item, number 3]

[reading agenda item, number 4] >> supervisor fewer: okay. president yee would like to say something. >> president yee: supervisor fewer, -- chair fewer, thank you for orchestrating this particular -- these particular items, so that some people that may not be able to stay here forever, can actually say something about the bond measure, if they wish. we are going through some of the amendments. we're pretty close to finalizing the amendments. but, you know, instead of trying to rush through and make a couple of mistakes, we prefer to do it as correctly as possible. generally, as you know, the amendments will talk about the

$100 million additional funding that we will be putting into the bond measure. and that it's been divided up into different elements of the bond. and i don't want to give you the exact numbers, since it could change in the next hour. but for those that are here for supporting more funding into -- supporting affordable housing for seniors, that i could say pretty safely that a big chunk, if not the biggest chunk of the $100 million, will go towards affordable housing for seniors. and the rest would be spread over other issues, including additional issues that we have

not discussed for the $500 million. if you're here in particular to support senior housing and it really would be a strain to stay here for another possibly many, many more hours, this is your opportunity to just come up and talk about -- that support. so without giving you the amount, rest assured that the bulk or the biggest piece of it will go towards senior housing. >> supervisor fewer: so no need to fill out cards. would anyone like to come and speak at this moment, to offer public comment on the housing it bond? yes, come on up. to our police department, we will probably not hear your item until after the recess for lunch and bio needs. so just to let you know if you would like to get some lunch or something. thanks.

>> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: you have two minutes. madam clerk, clock. >> thank you very much for allowing us to speak now. my name is betty trainor and i'm the board president at senior and disability action. we have decided that we won't all be speaking. myself and mr. long will be speaking. and we'll have others just behind us. so in support. so i will begin my preparation now. it is just two minutes. it is urgent that we make san francisco senior housing affordable and available. we all know low-income elders, friends, family, clients and/or your constituents, who cannot afford the senior housing that is suppose to be for them, because it is too expensive or because it is not even available. they are being excluded from the very housing the city has planned for them, because

they're real and fixed incomes, whether on s.s.i.ism, social security or a small pension, often less than $1,000 per month, are too low to qualify for the units, where the minimum income is set at $24,000 a year. so we urge you to also support and fully fund the s.o.s. senior housing affordability program, providing $5 million in rent subsidies for housing now in the senior housing pipeline. but equally important we urgently need an increase in the senior housing pipeline. [bell ringing] and that's an increase in the housing bond allotment, currently at $9 million. the senior housing bond committee recommended that the bond be expanded by at least an additional 750 units. when we have by the city's own data more than 5,000 seniors in some cases applying for less than 100 units, it's obviously we need more senior housing in san francisco. please increase the senior

housing portion of the bond to meet the needs of our seniors. and we look toward to working with you and the mayor's office. [bell ringing] [speaking alternate language] >> hi, i'm the president of committee tenants' association. in the past, many members tried

their best to apply for senior housing, some members keep a stack of senior housing application copies at home for the past ten years. there are more than 40 applications in the stack. however, he never gets his senior housing and now he's still living in an s.r.o. unit. some seniors would bring themselves of being unlucky person. but i want to tell them, it is not their fault. it is because the system is broken. [speaking alternate language] >> voice of translator: we all know senior housing is

inadequate. but the resources put into developing senior housing is far from enough. among the low-income population, 24% of them are seniors. yet the city only puts 12% of the resources into developing senior housing. is it because the city doesn't care about seniors? [speaking alternate language] [speaking alternate language]

>> voice of translator: and that's a big problem is that the rent of senior housing is too ridiculously high. in april, there was a senior housing application opportunity. the minimum income requirements for a studio is $2,380. the rent is about $190. for low-income seniors, the income is usually around $100 and a seniors' couple is like $1,600. the represent is $1,190 affordable? absolutely not. an affordable housing is ironic at the same time it does not help senior housing crisis. [speaking alternate language] [bell ringing]

>> voice of translator: seniors have been waiting in the senior housing list for at least ten year year and cannot apply for senior housing. there's no opportunity at all. we do not have time to raise any more. community tenants' association -- [bell ringing] [microphone shut off] >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. any other speakers? thank you, theresa. please start. next speaker. >> good morning.

excuse me. supervisors, my name is donna smith and i was born and raised in bay viewpoint. i have seen and heard a lot about african-americans here in san francisco. and in the 1940s, the population for african-americans was 47%. 2019, it's 3.5%. so you know something is really wrong with this picture. in the '50s, san francisco redevelopment -- the western addition were told african-american families, who were homeowners and owned victorian homes and things, they were told that they were going to be torn down. they were given 40 plus thousand dollars and a silver certificate, which is not anything now. they were given that information that victorians were going to be

torn down. some of them are still in existence right now. some of them are relatives. so they were misplaced again. and those buildings are still existing. okay. and also which is very disturbing for us to hear all of those lies that's been told to us for years and years, distrust and disappointment. and the -- oh, my time is up. >> 30 more seconds. >> okay. 30 more seconds. well, then, let me get to one of the things i want to suggest that could happen. because i could go on a little bit longer. one of the things that i would like to see, i respect the different categories that people have like homelessness, h.i.v., disabilities and things like that. the different categories for people to apply for affordable housing, which isn't affordable as we know. but i would like to --

>> excuse me, madam chair, the speaker's time has concluded. >> yes, i'm sorry. >> can i ask a question? >> supervisor fewer: do you have something ask can i ask her a question. supervisor yee would like to ask you a question. >> president yee: so what would you -- i mean, when you made the statement and you have a long history, what would you like to see again? >> i would like to see some type of -- how about category for people who were born and raised here, that have worked here all their lives and helped with the success of building san francisco. it should be for like eligibility. like if you start any job, a person who starts and someone who has been there 15, 20 years. you don't have the same rights.

so in my category and some other people, we've been here. but we don't qualify for some of the things, you know, if you're not h.i.v. or this or that or disabled. could there be some type -- something about eligibility and seniority. that should have something to do. because we sure -- my dad helped mr. the bank of america building, transamerica. and things like that. i had five businesses on 3rd street, my relatives. i would like to see what criteria could be done. >> president yee: thank you. thank you. and this shouldn't be a discussion, but just to let my colleagues know, part of the 40% set-aside for neighborhood preference, sort of gets to that. >> supervisor fewer: we understand. i mean, as a native san franciscan, fourth generation and supervisor yee, too. we completely understand your

suggestion. thank you very much. are there any other members that would like to make comments, mr. wright, you may comment now. we are going to be bringing amendments to the housing bond. if you'd like to comment on the amendments also, you will not be able to if you speak now. so you can speak now or after the full housing bond is presented. >> well, i'm going to speak at the end of the year anyway for general public comment at the end of the hearing. >> supervisor fewer: yes. but that is -- that subject matter is pertaining specifically to the department's presentations. >> yeah. so i'll get my point across. >> supervisor fewer: all right. that means you want to comment now and get your point across? >> everything that i get, i want to speak. okay. >> supervisor fewer: all right. i think we know that. thank you, mr. wright. >> okay. first of all, as a viewer, i object to the city wanting to

tax low-income bracket people for any type of maintenance repair on the buildings, that's opened by the city. you sit up there and want to tax and put liens on the tenants that's very, very low-income bracket that lives in these projects. then you demonstrate that 100% pure as far as the damn hypocrite is concerned by giving twitter $55 million tax-free money during this timeframe. and it's well over $217 billion worth of free money they're getting. and as far as these people that spoke earlier, are you aware undocumented immigrants paying $3 a month for a brand-new apartment, $3 a month for first month's rent, $3 a month for last month's rent and 3ed god damn dollars a month for security deposit. a total of $9 to move into a brand-new apartment and you have the audacity to take airbnb to court and claim that they're contributing to the shortage of

housing in san francisco. i make this kind of demonstration and demonstrate that you've got illegal immigration getting a brand-new apartment paying $3 a month, it will blow your claim against airbnb out of the water. it's not fair. and the thing about this redevelopment, where you talk about you want to follow rules and regulations. 15% of the all brand-new buildings is suppose to be for low-income and affordable -- and very low-income and moderate income families. god damn street and you're not even following your own god damn rules and regulations. [bell ringing] current events. you've got 8,011 homeless people in san francisco right now, because management of the taxpayers' money. right now today. right now. people being cleared out by the department of public works and in tents and ain't got nowhere to go. makes it very clear that you get

to the navigation. [bell ringing] >> supervisor fewer: thank you, mr. wright. >> thank you, supervisors i'm with the council of community housing organizations. like i said last week, i don't envy the position you're in, trying to divide a pie among such very important and needed uses. i think you all are working very hard between the senior housing allocations, geographic equity, co-op housing, teacher housing, so many important needs. the main thing i want to emphasize for you all, as supervisors, and for the mayor's representatives, is wanting to see you all come together and ensure that this bond is part, not only part of our capital plan, but is something that we can look to every five years,

the same way that we look to parks bonds, the same way we look to emergency services bonds. there is a lot of need and in the coming years, as we start to really address climate change and what it means to restructure our city, for sustainable uses, the kind of investment that we need to be making for affordable housing, it's far beyond what we've done before. lastly i know that some of the discussions are about how we truly serve the most needed populations, how we serve extremely low-income seniors. i want to thank supervisor -- president yee for allocating -- for working to allocate funds for seniors, specifically to make those projects work. we need to be looking at those funding sources through the dignity fund, through other sources. [bell ringing] as well as looking forward to prop c funds becoming available to truly serve extremely low-income folks coming out of

homelessness to find permanent housing. again thank you very much for all of work that you do. >> supervisor fewer: thank you for your work, sir. any other public comment on the housing bond? yes. wow! mr. train. come on up. >> trying to be a retired high school social studies teacher. today representing united educators of san francisco. school year just ended. and teachers and paraeducaters left their school sites. they said good-bye to their students. and no one in the city knows how many of those folks are going to be returning to the schools next year. we know there is an affordability crisis in san francisco. for those who the work in our schools. just a year plus, the voters of san francisco voted to tax themselves to help teachers, 62%

of them, to help teachers and parents stay in san francisco. and they recognized that teachers are not the only ones actually teaching the kids in our classrooms, but they're also our partners, the para-educators. we are thrilled that there's an additional $20 million on the table in the current housing bond. if that $20 million is included for educator housing, how many students are going to have their teachers returning, as we go down the pike, as we go school year after school year. the $20 million obviously is not the solution. but it's a strong, significant marker that the city of san francisco will aid the school district of san francisco to keep educators doing what they love doing and need to be doing for the well being of future generations. [bell ringing] thank you. support the 20 mill.

>> supervisor fewer: thank you very much, mr. tray. any other public comment on this? okay. i am not going to close public comment on it, because we are going to be returning to public comment. but at this time i'd like to call up our san francisco police department. but, however, before we do that, we will be hearing first -- okay. so i just want to preface this by saying last year some of us were on the budget committee. and we had a very, very long discussion about the police budget. it was somewhat complicated because there were -- i think that there accompanied also the budget proposal, also accompanied at the same time this audit report, the performance audit that supervisor yee actually asked for, of the san francisco police department. so our budget legislative analyst actually released this report around the same time as the police department was presenting their budget.

so what i have asked the budget legislative office to do, and i think nicolas menard is going to be doing this, is actually gives us a brief high-level overview, to preface our conversation about the police. some of us this will be very familiar. because we discussed it at length last year. for newer members, this will -- after reading i think this audit report and other things, it will make a connection or maybe a little bit more sense, when the police come and ask about their budget. so we are going to first hear a very brief high-level presentation from the b.l.a. around the police budget. and this again relates to actually the conversation we had last year, with some of the people on the budget committee were not here or didn't participate in that. >> okay.

>> supervisor fewer: are we ready? >> i'm ready. >> supervisor fewer: okay. that's great. >> so i'm -- good good good morr fewer and members of the committee, i'm nick menard. i was the project manager for this audit and i'm going to be very high level, but feel free to ask questions. so slide 2. can they see it? okay. so the audit looked at three major areas. one, it looked at the patrol, division's workloads, opportunities for civilization. and it looks at overtime. and i want to emphasize something, too, when we were designing the study, we went through a month's long process with the police department to identify the units that respond to calls for service. and sometimes those included cars and sometimes they did not. but at any rate, it was a collaborative process. next slide. yep. so when looking at patrol staffing, the reason we look at calls for service is because

it's the primary workload, right. it's the time spent on calls, the primary indicator of their workload. so when we looked over a three-year period we found three things. one, is that the proportion of time spent responding to calls for service declined over time as patrol staffing increased. and, number two, is that at the time that the department did not look at time spent on calls for service, when making staffing allocations for the police districts. and that, number three, as a result, there was huge -- >> i'm sorry. >> excuse me. can you hear me now? okay. sorry. and that because the department wasn't looking at calls for service and making staffing allocations to the districts, that there were disparities in the amount of time, how busy they were basically. so you can see that on the next slide.

so what this shows are two things. one is that you can see the amount of time each district spends responding to calls for service. you know, there's a huge variety among the ten districts. and that also we looked at it -- we present two periods here on this table. you can see the dark blue is like the prior period. and the red is like the more recent period. you can see they all declined as time went on and again that's because staffing increaseed. so the next slide. so basically the takeaway here is you can harmonize, if you set a target and staff accordingly, you can harmonize the amount of time, you know, each district is responding to calls for service. and depending on the target you choose, that can really drive your staffing. so the lower the target, the more staffing you need in terms of like -- the responding to calls.

do you have a question? >> kind of. how do you -- how do you measure when they're responding to a call for service? they're all driving around with a list of -- >> it's actually all in the computer. so the department of -- >> when they flip the thing that says i'm going to go -- >> it's managed by emergency management. they basically clock in and out. >> okay. >> yep. so we recommended that the department -- go to the next slide, establish a target and then use that to staff accordingly. and talked to the department, since the audit occurred, they have selected a target. they selected 30%. it's on the lower end of what we've seen out there in other jurisdictions. you see between 30% and 50%, which means that very need more staffing to sort of meet that 30% target.

and they're monitoring it. so i'm going to skip over the scheduling stuff, because it's a little -- your hands are kind of tied, unfortunately. and go to civilization. so the other -- one of the other areas we looked at is civilization, right. so that is looking at assignments of sworn officers and whether they -- that positions that they're in could be filled by a civilian, which would then free them up and allow them to be deployed, right. and so to meet the ongoing needs of the city. and so in our review, we identified at least 200 positions, that should be reviewed on a position-by-position basis for civilization. and i emphasize it's a minimum, because that number does not include the investigations bureau, where there are opportunities to civilian-ize. we recommended that the

controller do that position-by-position analysis. [bell ringing] and that there's a sort of more -- and in the interim that the mayor's budget office work with the police department and immediately civilian-ize what they could. what's the update? in this current year, the board approved 25 civilianization positions. so that's 25 more officers that are now going to be -- once the positions are filled, they'll be available and on the street. the controller -- [bell ringing] last month the controller released an analysis showing -- identifying 50 additional positions that could be immediately civilianized. and and the department plans to conduct additional analysis for civilization over time. how does that impact the hiring plan we all talked about last year? so at the top, -- the top table

was the four-year hiring plan to increase the number of sworn officers. . the pure combination of civilization, additional academies, and the completion of mayor lee's own hiring plan. and then the bottom table shows the adjustments, given the additional civilization that's going to occur from the controller's -- for the positions identified in the controller's report. and you can see actually by year four, now you're getting 270, rather than 250. because of additional civilization. -- civilianization. the other issue is i want to remind people about, last year president yee you had you asked us to do a staffing study, within the scope. there's a larger staffing study that's under way, that's going to be done this year, to inform the budget discussion this year.

it is not. so that's ongoing. so we still frankly don't have a full understanding of what the staffing needs are in the department. so moving on to overtime. let's look at overtime over ten years. this is what that chart does. you can see in '07-'08, 650,000 hours of overtime. but it declines considerably in 2010. and why is that? that's because, well, there's a few reasons. one, there was fiscal constraints imposed on the departments at that time. there was the revenue issues, the economic downturn. so they had to reign in the overtime. but there's other issues, too. the other one. in 2011, the board changed the

admin code to list the no one should be working more than 520 hours of overtime, unless they have a special -- from the department of human resources. and you can see here that the number of people, who are working more than 520 hours, dramatically drops after the passage of that law. so overtime is a function of policy and it's a function of fiscal resources. and so we kind of see this as a historical example of an -- an ability to manage overtile. so with that in mind, we looked at overtime over a more recent period, and the overtime that we focused on in the one highlighted here, which is overtime related to arrests and investigations. and one that increased the most and frankly the one that has, you know, the greatest opportunity for control. and one interesting chart was

that remember back in 2010, when overtime was at an all-time low, overtime nearly tripled over the following six years. overtime specifically for arrests and investigations. but arrests went down by 30%. so just seeing that relationship and kind of moving in an unexpected direction, suggested to us while there probably are internal control gaps on this kind of overtime. so we evaluated the internal control environment at the department, where we looked at the city policy requirements, the department requirements and then other requirements -- or guidance provided by the u.s. department of justice and the international association of chiefs of police, to kind of figure out are there gaps in the policy, and number two, to the extent that the policy is in place, how could it be made better. so here's an e