Evidence after evidence that shows because theres this myth that tasers are less than lethal, that they often are used more regularly than guns and, therefore, lead to more deaths. We, you know, just from statistics from 1983 to 2017, there are at least 155 People Killed by police where tasers are a primary or contributing cause of the death, and then what we also know, its not only dangerous for the person thats tased, its dangerous for the officers themselves. Because they are ineffective 45 of the time, and when you have to get close to tase someone, so if an officer, instead of creating that time and distance, is getting close to tase someone and its ineffective 45 of the time, its putting that officer in as much danger as its putting the individual being tased. And thats a real, real concern. And then finally, you know, i was just listening to an npr report the other day that said because of the substantial risk to life that tasers cause, because of the deaths that this weapon has caused, Tasers International has reduced the power of the electric shock, and because of that, officers that are still using tasers in los angeles, in new york, and in houston, are reporting that theyve become less and less effective. What that has been and you can imagine, an officer tases an individual whos in crisis or mentally ill, the person its not effective enough to incapacitate them, and in order to respond to that incident, officers, and the data is bearing out, are using their guns and shooting more. Directly in the opposite direction where weve been heading and where we want to continue to go. And so i just, you know, the more and more evidence, the more and more studies, the more and more, you know, even examples of people being so injured, if not killed by this weapon, it being a danger for our officers, i, you know, have always thought this way, but i am more and more convinced as the days go on that this is an absolute mistake, and i believe we should remove this line item from our budget. But i also want to say please continue your amazing work. Its working. Its building more trust in the community. Its were finally getting that interaction that weve been begging for so long between officers and dph, and lets not put that work backwards. Thank you, supervisor, and definitely, i respect your comments. Thank you. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. Supervisor stefani. Supervisor stefani thank you, chair fewer, thank you, chief scott for being here today. I want to focus on overtime and the union square ambassadors, and with regard to the overtime implementation, if we implement these cuts, can you tell us what parts of the city will most likely see reduction in services . If we implement . Supervisor stefani if you implement the recommendation to get rid of the overtime. To cut . Supervisor stefani probably not a very good question. Yeah, so the mid Market Civic Center area, youll see a reduction from what we intend to do across the city, but mid market and civic center area, ill start there, you know, the transit hubs, the car breakins, some of the work that we intend to do there, across the city, the i think we distributed a list of where that where we intend to implement, enhance new foot beat, so across the city, those areas would be impacted, as well. And again, it goes back to and i want to kind of put this in the context of supervisor ronens comments. All this work works together. I mean, time and distance, we spend time on an incident, while thats going on, you still have these other demands that are happening with car breakins and people wanting to see foot beats in their neighborhood, so id like to think its not just in a vacuum of whether or not the foot patrols will be on your block or in your commercial corridor. It all works together, and it really does, because one thing allows us to do the other thing, and when you take one piece of that Building Block away, it does impact other areas of policing. And i agree, i think we are in a very good place because of the good work that the men and women of our department are doing, but it does come at a significant cost. You know, the cit work that was talked about, thats 60 hours of training. And were putting our goal is just for the 40hour training, 210 officers through that training a year, so those officers are not out on the street working foot beat, sector cars. Thats how the funding supports the overall mission, because it allows us to keep doing those things that were doing to be successful, while not cutting back on the services that we need with the demands that we have in front of us. Supervisor stefani okay. And so it is clear to me then if this is limited and we follow this recommendation, that we will lose foot patrols in each of our districts. Is that correct . You will lose some, yes. Right now its a tremendous amount of pressure to keep juggling to keep the foot patrols in place. We redeployed over 100 officers to get to where we are now. That came at a cost. Those officers werent just sitting around. Captains were under pressure to do things asked of them, and that pressure comes up to me in terms of we have to make choices. Do we put them in sector cars . Do we put them in the plain clothed units to deal with car breakins . And were constantly juggling that. This funding will support and allow us to be able to. Supervisor stefani i saw captain from Central Station asking for more around lombard street, so im one of the supervisors that constantly is requesting foot patrols, so i appreciate it, and it is my understanding that this is not new funding, right, its repurposing. Youre absolutely right. Supervisor stefani okay. So those are my questions around overtime. In terms of the union square ambassadors, i would like to understand the implications of whether or not we do not go forward with this program. I heard it when i heard it announced, it sounded very exciting. I know a lot of people, especially in the union square area, especially the Business Improvement district, were very much looking forward to this program, and i would like to understand why if we dont go forward, obviously, we still have policing to do in that area, which would seem to me we would be required for more foot beats, so im trying to understand the value of keeping the program when it might be more expensive to put more foot beats there to fill a Public Safety need that is very great in that union square area. Yes, and thank you for that question. Thats exactly how we have to arrive at a decision point. We identify a need, get demands from the public, look at crime statistics, trends, conditions in the area, and we have to decide how were going to address it, and typically, our only resource is to put officers there. Sometimes foot beat, but we have to address it by putting officers there, which is in an ideal world, thats great, but were looking at a more effective costefficient or economical way to do this, and to have a presence, not necessarily uniformed officer, but to have a presence thats engaged with the public that reports what they see, that then we can coordinate getting officers in place when they are needed, to make a tremendous difference. So to answer your question, our alternative is, yes, we have to post officers to address the issue and then try to keep them there as long as we can until the problem goes away, and thats what we end up doing. Its been described as whackamole. Supervisor stefani right. Sometimes we have to do that, but, you know, we dont want to continue with this whackamole game. We want to try Creative Solutions that are economical that we can do, put in place, and sustain, so we can make a difference in this area. Supervisor stefani and it can even result in higher overtime costs. It could, yes. Supervisor stefani i just want to say a couple things, and i think chair fewer said something at the very beginning of this meeting that we here are taxed with, of course, on the budget and finance committee, of making sure were spending taxpayer dollars wisely, and we have been asking hard questions of each Department Head and really making sure that we are making decisions that are sound and that are basically taking care of the taxpayers in a way that i think they would want us to. Here with the police department, i feel that i am not only obligated to follow that wise edict, but at the same time i feel that the charter, not that i feel the charter speaks to this in terms of section 4. 127, where we are guided by the voters who passed something in 1994 that said at all times we should have 1,971 full duty sworn officers at all times, and thats not something we can pick and choose to follow. That is in the charter, its mandated, i confirmed with the deputy City Attorney we cant pick and choose what we want to follow out of the charter, so when i hear were increasing police force by 155 or whatever, im fine with that, especially in the 1,971 Police Officers that we are required at least at a minimum to provide. So i am guided not only by what i should be doing with taxpayer money, but what are my obligations under the charter. And my feeling is that based on the whackamole game that you are describing, overtime costs, trying to get people in the academy, retirements, that we are not at that 1,971 number. Not consistently. I dont know that were here now. Last time you were here, we werent there, so my feeling is that we have to do everything according to the charter to make sure that we are fulfilling that obligation under the charter. Also, not only that, but it is a core function of local government to make sure that our public is safe, and like supervisor ronen said, there is so much that we have done, that you are done, that has been successful with the foot beats. I was going over this with my staff, since investing in proactive policing strategies, we are finally seeing positive results. Homicides are done, assaults are down, and theft and burglary are down. You have implemented important reforms. Officerinvolved shootings are down, use of force is down, body cameras are being implemented, bias training has been deployed. So much is being done positively at the San Francisco police department, and i thank you for that, and i am not comfortable right now with cutting overtime, because i feel that it will have a detriment to my district. I feel that it will have a detriment to the other districts, and i also feel that the union square Ambassador Program is something that we should go forward with, based on the fact that if we dont, were going to have to put more foot patrols there and be more expensive in the long run. Thats my feeling. I know we have more discussion, but thank you again. And i want to say one more thing, because chair fewer said something last week about this being such a noble profession and mentioned, you know, her husband served for 35 years and the sacrifice, youre running to danger and everyones running away, but i think what we often forget, too, is that its not just the Police Officers, its the family members. Its people like sandy, people like my best friends married to Police Officers that go through so much, and it is a noble profession, and again, i want to thank you for serving and definitely for family members who serve alongside their spouse and their friends, so thank you, chief. Thank you, supervisor stefani. Supervisor fewer okay, supervisor haney. Supervisor haney thank you, chair fewer and thank you, chief scott. Im over here. Wheres that coming from . And i want to also thank you for your leadership. Weve been able to work very closely together and ive told you im very supportive of foot patrols along mid market, union square, and along the tenderloin neighborhood. There is a lot of support for it, and weve seen positive impacts from it. Some of the challenges that were having around drug dealing in particular, i think, are assisted by having more foot patrols. Obviously, we also need a broader strategy, which we talked about, as well, which bring in other departments and really have something thats more coordinated and comprehensive. So i have some questions about the foot patrols and the overtime. So how many net new officers do we expect to have next year . Under the recommendation 29 or 30 . It was 35 in the mayors budget that came forward. Supervisor haney okay, and the number that were hearing thats much bigger than that, thats because i have here 155, is it because youre taking into consideration retirement and other things . Yeah, ms. Welsh, sorry 155 was in last years mayor mark farrells budget. 80 of those were existing funded recruits in the academy that were that became full duty, but we also lost 93 officers through retirements, terminations in that fiscal year, so theres some replacement factor there. And the mayor funded 25 civilizations, so that means as soon as we get a civilian in, the officer doing that job goes out into the field. Seven have been fild and we have the rest in the hopper, and the mayor funded a new hiring plan class of 50, and they are in academy. So it takes a while to have these officers out on the street. Which speaks to the onetime overtime to get this, you know, visibility now. Supervisor haney some of those officers are still just now coming in . So the 35 for next year, but then some, obviously, with all of the timeline and processes, we are always or regularly increasing the numbers that are actually able to be deployed into the field . Ideally, yes, yes, thats the reason we want to keep the Academy Classes going. Supervisor haney and do you know yet how many of the net 35 officers would be deployed as foot patrols . One of the its a fluid thing, because depending when they retired and what department they retired from, we have to fill the vacancies. Depending on who retires and where the va can scancies are c, oftentimes were able to balance the department through the recruits that come out of the academy and if gestation is down, then the recruits will go to that station, if its a training station, and then those officers that are finishing fco, when they go and finish their probation at their next station, they are able to balance the department that way, so depends where the vacancies are. What were trying to do is keep the number of foot beats constant and consistent, and depending on twice a year we have signups, so if officers want to leave the foot beats and work another unit or station, then we have to backfill and fill that vacancy. So its a real fluid number, but the idea is to have the consistency with those foot beats positions always filled. Supervisor haney got it. Because it i mean, theres a pretty significant increase to your budget this year, and i understand that theres a lot of important things that were funding with that. It would seem to me, i would hope, that with a 60plus Million Dollar increase, that we would be able to find a way within that to increase foot beats, not be at a point where we are saying that if we dont get this 2 million, which i understand is very important and that we would actually be decreasing. So with a 60plus Million Dollar increase, were not able to increase foot patrols, which seems to be a very important priority. To your point, when the staffing level does increase, we are able to increase the foot beats. Over the past two years, since we have really focused on this area, we have had some gains in the department, so there is, you know, that relief there, but we increased faster than the gains in the department. Like i said, over 100 officer increase in the foot beats deployment from 2017 to now, but as we grow and get to the 1971 number, that does get the relief to make those positions permanent. And theres more demand than we have officers right now. Supervisor haney yeah, i think the support for the new classes and additional officers and all of that and increasing the budget, im sure for the board, it comes with a hope or expectation that theres going to be additional foot beats, so its concerning to me that we would be saying that if we dont fund this overtime, which i hear is important to you, that we would actually see a cut. Especially in light of the broader increase that were funding. One thing i was also going to ask, you know, in november of last year, you, and the mayor announced an increase in foot patrols and mid market. I looked up the exact number, that there were ten officers, ten new officers that were designated to the mid Market Civic Center area. How does first of all, where was that funded from, and is that baselined in your budget, or are those ten officers the ones that youre funding with this 500,000, or how does that interact . This was just a few months ago, i guess now six or seven months ago, but how does that interact with whats happening in your budget here . So those officers were r redeployed from other areas. When we increased the foot patrols in mid market, we had to take existing resources and put them in that particular station, which is tenderloin, your district. Its just a matter of redeploying for that particular thing. Now, we do and plan to use overtime to enhance that, to keep the consistency there, but to answer your question, those are existing officers that were just redeployed. And it said in that announcement we have 43 officers who are deployed to mid market and civic center on foot patrols. Yes. That was a total size of that unit. Supervisor fewer excuse me one second. How many . 43. Supervisor fewer 43 in what area . In the mid Market Civic Center area. Supervisor fewer 43 in the mid market area on foot patrols, is that what im hearing, is that correct . Thats correct. Supervisor fewer thank you very much. So and in terms of what youre putting forward here, is and with the overtime, im still unclear, is that to increase the number or to maintain it at 43 . And i saw of the 2. 7 million of overtime youre expecting about 500,000 of that, if i saw it right, to go to mid market. Is that to maintain the 43, or is that to grow the number that are there . So we want to maintain the 43. Couple things happened with mid market last year. From july to august july to october, we had were responsible for the civic center, at least partially responsible, for policing the transit hub at the Civic Center Plaza. From july to august, we had the mayor gave us an additional overtime allotment to police that area, which is a part of mid market. We then increased the foot beats where you just mentioned, where we added the ten and that brought the total to 43. Intermittently we did use overtime funding to staff mid market, to have the consistent foot beats there. The foot beats are running from basically 6 00 a. M. To about midnight daily, seven days a week. 43 sounds like a lot, until you divide it by shifts seven days a week, and what you end up with is four or six officers a day. Or shifts. Supervisor haney right. So it sounds like a lot, but they are not all working at one time. Yeah, chair fewers question, 43 officers. Supervisor haney i was going to reiterate that, does sound like a lot, but when you have 6 00 a. M. To midnight, multiple shifts, youre in a situation at any given time its maybe six to eight, and its a very large area. It includes west field mall and all of that area all along market. When you break it down like that but i want to understand whether this overtime would increase that number or is it to maintain it right now. That would be an enhancement, so we would be able to do more in the mid market area, because we have the transit hubs, and what we did, absorbed that as part of the general safety plan for the Civic Center Plaza area, but that need is still there. People coming up from the muni platforms supervisor haney seventh street, exactly, huge need there. Im not at all suggesting we have correct, correct. So that that didnt totally go away, but when that funding ended, we didnt have that robust deployment while we had that funding. Things like that, the whole area, very, as you know, very intensive to police that area. A lot of need there. Supervisor haney and in terms of decision around deployment and where you decide to place foot patrols, youre doing that together with the captains . Fun of the things that has come up, and again, i understand 43 sounds like a huge number, its actually much smaller than that, but within the tenderloin itself, north of market, there are often a lot of questions about foot patrols and i think last i checked with the captain, there are about four problem solving beats that are assigned there. Can you speak to whether anything thats in your budget would potentially increase the foot patrol opportunities within north of market . Yes, thats an excellent question, supervisor. So the enhancements will allow the captain to have the flexibility to do more north of market. Because, again, these are enhancements, so it will allow that flexibility. And the other thing that id like to point out thats really important, the officers that are working the foot beats, they are not just walking, you know, they are engaging, but when they see crimes in progress, when they see, you know, drug deals go down, they engage and oftentimes they make arrests. And tenderloin is really good about posting those activities on their social media pages, but when they make that arrest its really important. I know the number 43 sounds like a great number, but they are working and they are very active and they make arrests, and so you need to we need to keep the presence out there to basically account for those activities that are inevitably going to happen that will pull them off the various streets that we want them on. So an arrest is part of that equation, particularly in the tenderloin, because its a very busy and active area. Supervisor haney well, you know, like i said, im very supportive of these foot beats. I think they have an important role. I do think that with the significant increase in your overall budget and with also with an increase in the staffing that i hope that we can, wherever possible, find ways to deploy that for foot patrols and, in particular, what weve done around mid market and civic center and within the tenderloin is very important. So im sure well have an ongoing conversation about how to make sure thats the case. [ please stand by ] i wanted to mention that supervisor yee would have to leave us. As i mentioned my colleagues had some other committee that the Staffing Task force that put together through the Police Commission is doing lot of the work now and hopefully will have their outcomes in august or september of this year, which is really good thing. We have Police Commissioners looking at those numbers. We have committees looking at those numbers. Even the final report, were hoping that well update my colleagues on board of supervisors. The fact that we supported many academies in the last few years and the net result of that that weve gained some positions. We know that theres going to be nutrition and everything else. This has been the game. These ar gains that have been made since youve been here. You mentioned many times, one the hallmarks how you want to approach police work in San Francisco is to activate more cops on the ground. Youve done that. In spite of the fact that we have the net increase in Police Officers, youve been able to do that. In addition, i think the other thing that changed the landscape, to the better, i hope, last year i argued like crazy to look at positions to unionize. I knew whatever officers get off the desk, thats more personnel that we can use as potential cops. The net result all this is that you had 20 something positions from last year. Now that youre celebrating little bit, youre hoping to get 25 more Police Officers available to do real cop work. Thats really appreciative. Theres nobody here that will argue we dont want that. In many ways, i guess im pointing out that not everything is gloom and doom. With the additional people that you have its going to help. Because of the increase in the numbers in terms of academy and civilization, you would think that the consistent 19 million that weve been spending on overtime, should see a decrease anyways. The 2. 4 that were arguing about, were discussing, it was like nothing in the budget compared to total budget. Theres going 62 million increase in your budget despite the 2. 4 million. 62 million increase that i personally will support. Theres no question about how to support your efforts. Whatever outcome of this discussion, this one percent of the increase, nobody can really say we dont support the police department. This is how we make it more efficient and can we do what you want to do in terms of these new activations. You will have 25 more civilian Police Officers. I calculated hours just based on 30 hours a week of the total 28,000, thats about 17 fulltime people that makes up the 28,000 hours. You take this in consideration theres about 25 more new civilianization positions. Maybe im saying it wrong. Theres 25 officers that will be available thats not assignedded to anything else now. My argument is can we see the taxpayer money and actually get to what you want to do with that increase knowing that even a year after this, theresgoing to btheres goingto be another 25 l Police Officers. Im inclined to think that we can. Im going to step back from that statement just bit. Whatever the department were in, we can do more, we have more. Of course we can do more. I want to support your he was and get Academy Classes up and running and getting these civilian jobs filled and not really disturb that piece of it. If indeed, if a task force is looking at staffing comes up with much larger number, that thats something we should i like to urge all of us to get behind and figure out how to get those numbers. I said a lot and my conclusion is that i would support this cut because i think you have new staffing coming up, not new staffing but new bodies available that can take up some of this. Again, i dont you nor the public to think that we dont support 1 of your increase for next year, we dont support the police department. Thank you. Thank you sir. Supervisor brown thank you. Thank you chief. I really appreciate everything that youve been doing for this Department Last couple of years. It really changed. It changed for the better. I have few questions though. When were talking about the beat officers, i know you have already existing pot of 20 million allocated for overtime. Is this for mainly for the beat officers . Yes. Are you talking about the 2. 8 . Supervisor brown you have 20 million allotted in general Fund Overtime. Thats everything. How much extra overtime does an average officer work . It varies. We did a breakdown. Supervisor brown i know when you look at what people in their overtime you can see the city government. I know you have officers that are making an overtime as much as almost theyre making in their salary. Thats working almost two people, are you saying two . Oh. Well, okay. When were looking at the overtime and im looking at the overtime lot of the officers make, im like how are they doing that . How are they working that many hours in a stressful demanding job . Do you have limited amount of overtime they can make . Its capped. Its a careerl its yearly cd it does have to be managed. Theres a cap per wea week and yearly cap. Supervisor brown whats the weekly cap . Terms of on duty . Supervisor brown yes. 20. Theres overtime within the department and then theres the 10b overtime, working for private. Supervisor brown im not talking about 10b. Im talking about doing their job. The its 20 a week. They can work 60 hours a week . Is that their cap . What would that be . If youre asking theres a cap per year, 520. Thats set by ordinance. It varies if youre on an arrest and youre working six or seven hours overtime, it has to be managed. Theres not a daily cap. Its situational. What supervisors and managers capped have to do with it, they have to monitor. Somebody worked 10 hours plus, 7 hours overtime, they have to be work next day, you want to adjust the shift or give that person the day off. You have to manage it. Its really situational. I misunderstood your question. Supervisor brown theres a yearly cap. Thats the question i have. With the actual beat officers, i think all of us and our neighborhoods want beat officers. I cant go to neighborhood that doesnt want beat officers. One the things i noticed, you were talking about beat officers but there wasnt anything like around Public Housing in district 5. Im just like how are you deploying these beat officers because you would think that if youre deploying beat officers and you have that many in midmarket, they would be around also Public Housing and fillmore that has lot of issues. When you have a lot of the beat officers, they push things to another area lot of times. Im just kind of wondering how youre dealing with that when youre looking at your budget and looking at the deployment . Its really based on crime trends. The captain has a feel where those areas are that rare that type of presence. You have several in your district. Corridors where i have issues, car breakins, good example, theres not a foot beat there. We have to post that because supervisor brown you have a post on alamo square. Those decisions are made at the local level. As far as me what we do from the upper level, we meet often and discuss the trends that were seeing across the city. If we need to make adjustments well discuss it with the captain. There are posted foot beats in each area, each captain has a list of areas. That can change depending on whats going on. I believe we distributed that list where they are post. Ed. Posted. Things come up you might have a homicide or something that happened or shooting that requires presence to keep things calm. We have to make those adjustments. Every captain does have a list of where they are signing their foot beats. Supervisor brown do you change that when you take officers away . Does it change . It can. Depending on when deployment changes have to be made and the decisions have been made, you have to prioritize. For instance, japantown, there were lot of car breakins there. We do have housing officers, theres foot beats in the housing complexes across the city. Supervisor brown dont you take them away for events . Sometimes we have to, special events. We have make deployment decisions. We have to make those adjustments. Thats where the funding come in and it allow us to consistently have officers in those beats. Some of the decisions its matter of priority whats going on. Supervisor brown really, we all love the foot beats. We all all neighborhoods want them. 13 years i worked on the first beat patrol legislation in the city. Also know that when we had a really downturn budget wise in the city and economy, what we did is we gave more money to nonprofits to actually address any violence and things going on before it happened. Before proactive instead of reactive. I feel that some of the things that were talking about could actually be the nonprofits that weve been funding to go out there and really engage with people. I understand you wanting to the people that are at a desk considered out tropicalling. Is there a reason theyre at a desk . Is there a physical reason they cant be out patrolling . Whewhat are the reasons that officer is there . Just because theres no civilian position is it Health Reasons . There are times where limitations due to Health Concerns or injuries. Officers on restricted duty. We dont have a whole lot of officers on restricted duty. There are some. They are put in positions temporarily. Those arent typically permanent positions. Some of the Administrative Functions are permanent positions. You have administrative staff that officers that are assigned to administrative positions. Those are part of what we were tasked looking at in terms of civilianizations. Thats what weve been working with others on. We did it by 50 that we talked about now. Typically those restricted duty positions are temporary. Supervisor brown you dont think with the new Academy Classes that has been happening in the ones coming up this is going to help fill these beat patrol that i want for the extra 2. 8 million. Overtime . Supervisor brown how much time. How many officers will we have in six months out of the academy . We have one class graduating in october. Depending on how many people make it to october, youre looking at 30. Supervisor brown well have 30 and another six months maybe another 30. Well have another 60 officers . Right. Supervisor brown how many do you think well have retire in that year . We typically lose around 80 officers to retirement year. This year were at 48 have retired already. We will have more concrete number probably by end of the fiscal year. 48 have retired already this year. Supervisor brown okay. Also, i just keep thinking that the 20 million it you have gotten in the general Fund Overtime that you gotten, you had 20 million. Thats not going to cover it . 19. 2 million is our current year, general Fund Overtime and on the overhead, this is how its broken down in terms how the money is spent. 5. 3 million process arrests, complete service calls, 4 million for subpoena time, 3. 6 million city events, 3. 3 million Critical Incidents details. And 500,000 funded by the airport for academy training. Thats reimbursed by airport. That 530,000 what i mentioned to supervisor haneys question that was onetime money to enhance policing and civic centre. The last 500,000 was onetime use of support training. Thats how the money was spent. Similar breakdown for next year. Except for the onetime exception. Supervisor brown look, i support beat officers. I think that with us looking at whats happening now with funding, im not sure how we can put more money forward. I feel like the Academy Classes we should be having Academy Classes. Getting more how many officers get out of their car and walk the beat . Do they get out of their car and walk th the beat . They do. It depend on call. It times where theyre going from call to call. I want to go back to the housing officers. This is repurposed and not new money. 4000 hours of that is meant to go to the police the Housing Development across the city. Supervisor brown i get it. I know they get pulled all the time for everything. I cant tell you how many times ive been there. You dont see them as much as i think you should. That was my question. With the beat officers, not being around a certain area because maybe youre looking at, theres housing officers around there. They get pulled lot. Sometimes we have to for special events. Thats what this funding does. It gives us some flexibility on consistent deployment. I want to go back to comments made here. When we look at the budgetary increases over the years, we have to ask the question of what was happening in 2015 and 2016 in terms of policing of the city, we werent satisfied with the way things were. Those changes do come at a cost. They come at a significant cost. Things are better but they are better because weve been blessed with an increase budget and adequate funding. We intend to spend the money wisely and carefully. Theres a cost to whats being asked for. We try very hard it meet the demands. Supervisor brown i appreciate that. I know its not an easy job. I have one other question about your vehicles, police vehicles. If we looked at cutting those, i think its 2. 5,ing what would that do . Our cars are in awful shape. I dont say that lightly. Our fleet is in really bad sha shape. To get it an acceptable level with our fleet management, our cars are, theres a slide that show you illustrate the condition of our fleet. Our patrol vehicle, we have 105 vehicles over 10 years old. The age itself is an issue. The age and condition is a bigger issue. It cost more to mountain the maintain the cars and fuel them and keep them on the streets. Over half our fleet is over 10 years old. Almost 34 our fleet has over 150,000 miles. Best practice for police fleet when you get about 80,000 miles you usually turning that car over. We really need to maintain the fleet. Its at a critical point. Z supervisor brown we mutt more officers on bikes . We do have bikes. It becomes a matter one of the things that has not been discussed here. We have to discussed inspector calls and response times not getting to the calls. Thats not an efficient way it use those resources. Cars are basic, very basic part of policing. Any modern police force, you have to have cars. That fleet is really important. Were not asking for everything that we need. We are asking for enough to keep the fleet in serviceable condition so the officers have the basic tools they need to do their jobs. Thats not a new request. Its a reasonable request. We do need the cars, desperately. Supervisor brown we cant phase in the cars overtime, next couple of years . Not give you as many. Part of the issue, weve done that so many years. Our fleet is in lot worse condition than it needs to be. Some of them was because of the conditions budgetary conditions at that time. While we are in better conditions, this is Good Opportunity for us to update our fleet. When you talk it officers, i know you do, you ask the question to patrol ever officer, they will tell you one of the things it they get irritated about is the condition of the fleet. Its in really bad shape. Officers theres cars that dont start. Its not a Good Condition for us. We believe this is a reasonable ask. Supervisor brown thank you chief. Supervisor fewer i want top acknowledge that we have consider amount of people here for Public Comment. We have people with Young Children here. Im going to take a pause to have Public Comment some asking b. L. A. Would you like to respond what you have heard now or after Public Comment . I cant hear you. I think i can be quick supervisor fewer lets hear you now. Then well pause and have Public Comment. People who have been waiting can actually give Public Comment and then we will resume. Im from the budget analyst office. I want to offer alternative perspective to some the points raised here. Thinking big picture. Overtime really is a function of demand for service, controls on overtime and available staff. I will comment briefly. Were not contesting theres a need for more police. What were recognizing number one is there are significant lapses in overtime controls in the department. The period we looked at in our audit overtime relating tokers ares went up tripled while arrests w3nt down by 30 . The lack of controls that we identified in the audit are actually not contested by the police department. They say they agree with our recommendations, they chosen not to implement them. Its been a year. Number two, the staffing portion, when you gain more staff, you have more people to do the job that otherwise need to do on overtime. Even is it 150 new officers, how many people will retire. If you take the departments number of 75, you still only need to take 19 of those peoples time to dedicate to the number of hours that they are requesting on foot beat for overtime. Its just a choice about how to use those people. Just like it was a choice not to implement the Management Controls on overtime. The other element of staffing too, theres a charter requirement. The controller certified we have met that charter requirement as of now. Am i wrong . Net of positions is enough officers. Do you want to clarify . The other point i want to make too is that this idea that the department was funding the overtime through its own budget doesnt mean theres not an opportunity to delete the overtime and repurpose it. Means departments budget by balanced. Finally, this idea that the overtime it is also a timing issue. A certain point theyre saying is that they have the staff to come and be able to fulfill all these duties without using overtime. Thats what they say every year. Thats what they said last year about civic centre. Its really just a timing issue about when you want these foot beats to be accomplished. Is it july 1st or could it wait four months or six months until theres sufficient staff to meet these foot beat requirements. I n