Submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear in the july 9th, board of supervisors just board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much. Lets see. So i just want to welcome everyone back. Good morning, today is the final day of the boards deliberations as we work to craft a comprehensive starting plan to pass out a Budget Committee after hearing from hundreds of people at Public Comment earlier this week. As ive mentioned before, we have received over 400 million in budget requests here, and we are working hard to address incredible need and communities in communities across San Francisco. Yesterday, i released a spending plan after hearing from the public and from my colleagues. My hope is we can grow the available funding even more to prioritize a few more outstanding issues. Today we will address a few more items and recess the meeting so my office can work with the controller to prepare a spending plan. Colleagues, i propose we recess until 2 00 p. M. After our meeting today to allow for that time to work. Does that sound good . That is great. Thank you very much. Madame clerk, will you please call item number 3 . Resolution concurring with the controller specification of the total previously approved can be provided by a contractor and the city and county employees. Thank you very much. I believe we have our controller good morning, supervisors. We presented this item briefly last week. I am obviously available to answer any questions you have. Great. Mr. Controller, i think when i pulled this item that last year, the item was just for june. It is actually a pretty hefty item. We do contract out a lot of employees, and so in the original legislation it said that for an emergency situation can you give me some clarification on that, and whether or not how will we need to declare an emergency situation in order to contract out these folks . I would be happy to. The Authority Contract services lives in the charter under Voter Initiative from the late seventies. That is the prop jay contracting process which we described. The language in the ordinance as it refers to emergency isnt driven by the need to declare an emergency under the chart here, but under a provision every labor contract. That is what it is only in cases where the city is proposing a new contracting proposal that affects current bargaining unit members or requires positions being cut from the budget. I think this is a legislative holdover from the past that has been carried forward year after year. It is actually not required for the board or the mayor to declare an emergency to move forward with this item. So we have had this in place for about 15 years. Is that correct . The contracting allowances under prop jay and it goes further than then further than that. The majority of the services you see in front of you have been contracted out for 15 years or more in these cases. Okay. The reason i mention this is because many of those positions that i looked at were entrylevel positions and that we could actually be hiring employees, our own employees. I know its more expensive, so was this designed first as a cost savings measure . I believe, yes, these contracting proposals when they were first entered into many years ago, were designed to save city money, and are finding as they continue to do so. The choice about whether you want to move forward isnt going for our office, it is one for the mayor and the board to decide. Our job is to certify that if you do continue to contract out these services, that they do result in cost savings and thats the analysis. That is the purpose. According to our records, it shows as though we do have some cost savings from that. That is correct. Okay. I think it is a bigger issue, actually, about contracting out that cant be discussed in this length of time now, so why dont we move this particular item to the full board of july 16th. Can replace a Public Comment . Yes. Are there any members of the public who like to comment on item number 3 . Seeing none, Public Comment is close. I would like to make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation to the full Board Meeting of july 16th. Can i have a second, please . I will take that without objection. Hold on. I said we should just go ahead and pass those out, but i also think we should look at this. Yeah. I think youre absolutely right. I think that this is something we should look at because i also would like to see the numbers of whether or not we are contracting out more people than we have before. Historically, how many people are we actually contracting out . I think it would be a good starting point. Okay, thank you very much. We passed that out of committee, thats great. Lets hear item four and five. His recreation and park in the room . They are not in the room. Okay. Then lets take item can you please read item one and two, please. Item one is the budget appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenditures for the city for the fiscal year ending june 30 th 2020 and june 30th 2021 item two is annual salary ordinance in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending june 30 th, 2020 and june 30th 2021 continuing, creating, or establishing these positions. Thank you very much. This is a continuing conversation that we have had oh,. Here is recreation and park. Okay, great. I believe that we have a report from the controller on items one and two. Recreation and park has just gotten into the room now. I thought we could get rid of that first, but they are a little late. And then the b. L. A. Has a report , also, for us. Thank you again for continuing this item from last week. The analysis that my office wanted to perform was whether or not, which reduction the mayor has imposed on the budget, that the committee is enacted with reductions on the b. L. A. , and with the additional possibilities that were discussed in Committee Last week we simply wanted a review of the current payroll and hiring plan against that revised budget to ensure that there were Funds Available to support those and to determine what positions are funded here and which art. We really appreciate having the opportunity to do that and have that item back here today. Would you find, after much work with the department, they have presented us with projections for the coming fiscal year, which we find to be credible. It indicates they can, indeed support the current payroll and their hiring plan within the budget as it has been amended, which means, effectively, the reductions you were talking about last time of the four probation officers, which i believe was a motion that supervisor ronen raise, those are indeed funded positions. The board does reduce those positions and the department would have to start stop the hiring processes for them. They would be taking money from their budget. That is my report on this item. Thank you very much. Lets hear from the b. L. A. Now. Good morning. As you hopefully have seen, we handed out a revised list of recommendations for the juvenile Probation Department to correct for a technical error. The current total recommendations for the department in fiscal your 2019, 2020 total 274,315. Those are all general fund ongoing savings, and for fiscal year 20202021, the total is now 286,279. Those are all general fund, all ongoing savings. Thank you very much. So there has been a correction to the budget and amended. I believe these are recommendations that have already been accepted by the department of juvenile probation is that correct . That is correct. I believe you have already indicated to the controller that it is the intention of this committee to assess. Generally, tonight, we will seek consensus on whether or not we accept the amended version from gpd. Good. Mr. Controller, please know that the board has [indiscernible] question. Yes . To the b. L. A. , when we state that the first year is ongoing, is that you who deals with the second year, or zletter 286,000 for the second year of top of the 234,000 . Basically what we are getting in savings for the first year is 200 some deeper thousand 305. For the second year, incrementally increases. Those are the savings for each of the years. I just wanted to make sure that we didnt miss these. Correct. Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you for agreeing to the recommendations of the b. L. A. And continue our conversation, i think we had some discussion about four positions that probation officers have taken over, and i believe these are probation officers that used to work at log cabin. Is that correct . [indiscernible] there are officer conditions in the departments budget. There was a separate conversation with respect to five log cabin around councillor positions that are currently vacant, and one director position for the ranch. The department is in concurrence that the log cabin branch positions should be removed from the departments budget with the accompanying attrition his adjustment for those positions so that there is no question or concern with respect to those positions. We expressed at the last hearing our desire to maintain the four deputy probation officer positions that were identified as vacant and pending being filled. There were a total of 62, two of which, during our last conversation, supervisor ronen reflected in need to maintain those positions given the specific assignments. There are two positions that we were targeting for schoolbased probation officers, and two positions that will be designated to deliver cognitive, behavioral interventions for young people on probation. At this time, while we certainly concur with the controllers position with respect to the departments ability to fund each of those vacant positions, we would respectfully ask that there be some reconsideration with respect to taking all four of those positions so that there is at least some flexibility for the department to implement any new legislative mandates that we are going to be responsible for, specifically, im anticipating that there will be some legislative requirements associated with s. B. 439 which is a new provision that requires alternatives to this system for young people who are younger than 12 years old. So as i stand here today, i certainly respect the recommendations and i appreciate supervisor ronens concern with respect to reducing our budget. I would ask that the be some reconsideration to preserve some portion of the remaining four deputy probation officer positions. Thank you very much. Supervisor ronen . Thank you. Thank you for recognizing the need to reduce the positions from a log cabin that are no longer needed. I appreciate that. I do continue to feel that its important and necessary to reduce those four positions, and i just wanted to repeat for the committee the reasons why. First of all, the research doesnt support having probation officers clear the role of, you know, being inside of middle schools and providing cognitive behavioral intervention. As i shared last week, Research Published by the anti Casey Foundation in 2018 indicates that putting probation officers and middle schools will disproportionately impact youth of color, and will not have a preventive impact, but increase the likelihood that youth will end up in deeper and deeper involved in the system. Furthermore, experts in the field have stated that having probation officers conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is again, placing Law Enforcement officers in an inappropriate role. For example, the National Institute National Institute for criminal Justice Reform recommends that probation officers should be connecting youth and families to cognitive behavioral support in the community, not in the department furthermore, these supports can be covered for youth under medicaid, meaning we could draw down federal funds for offering therapy in a community rather than paying for it to county funds. Second, these roles that Mental Health and Development Professionals are already doing both in our schools in our community. School social workers, Wellness Center directors, nonprofit Youth Development staff and therapists can play and do play these roles. I reached out to members of the San Francisco school board, to the united educators of San Francisco, and two sciu, and all of them were shocked and dismayed to hear about both of these proposals because they have workers already playing these roles in our schools, and they are concerned that no one from juvenile probation has reached out to them to let them know that this was even being considered. Finally, as a board, we have decided to close Juvenile Hall by december 2021. I believe that eliminating these positions is a crucial step towards the further getting closer to that goal. We must be looking at the budget over these next two and a half years to see where we can make smart decisions with regards to vacant positions and positions that are no longer required for daytoday operations. Therefore, i would like to make the following motion. I would like to make a motion to cut forward four deputy probation officer positions and associated salary funding that were slotted for the positions i discussed. Two, to be in middle schools and to run cognitive behavioral intervention groups. I would also like to make a motion to cut Position Authority for five unfunded positions for log cabin branch. Three of those are class 8321 and one is class 8564. As we discussed last week. These are positions that have been vacant since the closure of the ranch and that the department has not budgeted for. Finally, if there are recommendations that come out of the Blueribbon Panel that require additional staff that worry are not anticipating right now, we can revisit that at the appropriate time, you know, with budget supplementals, with position supplementals, et cetera. I hope to have this part the support of my colleagues for these motions. Through the chair, supervisor ronen, i just want some clarification. So i get the part of cutting the position to save some money so we could put it back into the ad back process, but i thought you want that money for a specific activity or line item. So if that is true, is this something that has been discussed through the request to support certain projects. What we have been doing is asking everybody to come up with ideas that we do have funding to add back and we are not saying cut here and give us certain things, so im a little uncomfortable with that they need to have some discussion about that. I dont know if we have had. Can i explain . That is a good point. When we passed the legislation to close Juvenile Hall, the part of that was we werent we were going to cut from the budget the 13 million that it takes over time to run Juvenile Hall, but not take those investments out of the area of serving youth that fall to the criminal Justice System. So while it is not specifically tagged to any item in the ad back amount, there are already on the adback list many items, including reopening of the Girls Group Home in San Francisco, programs through other organizations for youth, and there was one other, the program through huckleberry youth services. It is not that it is tagged precisely for those services, but it goes to the general ad back fund, and there are, on the ad back list, those youth serving services that equal about the same amount. It is not anything official like we are reserving them for a particular proposal. The important point, im sorry if im not explaining myself well, but the important point i want to make is that as, over time, we cut the budget for Juvenile Hall, we shouldnt be diverting that money into other needs of the city. We still need those investments in the youth that need the most most help in the system and we should be reinvesting that money in alternative interventions for youth who commit crimes to get them on the right track. So to repeat, we are not getting rid of anything, we are not reserving. If we cut these positions, the money goes to the general adback pot, but all under our ad back list that we have all seen, there are communitybased interventions for youth involved in the criminal Justice System that, you know, we have collectively agreed are a priority to fund. Does that make sense . I am okay as long as this is on our list. Otherwise we would go down a slippery slope of cutting from this particular department and it has to match up with something. Absolutely. That is not what is happening. Thank you. I would say as budget chair, also, as you know, we have 400 million of ask, so we are not adding any more ask to this list. This is the list as it is. You have all seen what has been requested. Definitely we can use these funds toward that, but i think it is the prerogative, quite frankly, of the budget chair to make that list and also to prioritize items in that. So i am going to turn it over to supervisor mandelman. I thank you might have questions yeah. Chief nancy, you are going to somewhat you are in somewhat a peculiar position, as you know most of the departments who come before us, we have gotten recommendations recommendations from the budget and legislative analyst and that has formed the framework in which we have approached cuts to that department. In general, we have accepted those recommendations, and in a few cases we have had discussions about those recommendations and have done some or all of what the b. L. A. Was recommending. In your case, it appears we are entering into programmatic discussions about the work of your department, which is different, maybe not different for from other years, but this is the first time i have seen this this year as a new member of this committee. So i am a little out of my depth in waiting into the programmatic discussion. I know that as i expressed last week, the notion of probation officers in middle schools gives me some visceral discomfort, but i also know i have no notion at all of what best practices are. I did some googling, a sense of some of these programs have been cancelled in other areas, but it also sounds like it is not uncommon for juvenile Probation Departments to have probation officers in middle schools doing work there. I think it might well be right that that is not a terrific program, and i would love to hear more about again, it sounds like this is also something relatively new, and so i do wonder whether we should be undertaking that project right now given what all else is going on with the juvenile Probation Department. I guess again, i would ask you to explain your need and the benefits of those two positions. Absolutely. But also, then the other two positions and why we should not i mean, again, we would be illuminating physicians that have been in your department, even if they are not currently . That is correct. If you could just take one more try at making the case for either those jobs, or the need for those positions in your department, given the fact that the numbers of youth a gpd are going down. Thank you for the question. First and foremost, the juvenile Probation Department has had a Longstanding Partnership with our schools in San Francisco. Probation officers are routinely visiting schools, working with school personnel, working with the young people within those school environments. That is not uncommon, that is not new pick a study of a School Based Program in philadelphia are not new. A study of a schoolbased program in philadelphia with probation officers working with low level risk offenders lead to a 68 reduction in schoolbased arrests. That is significant. Statewide, in the state of pennsylvania, the study also found that 70 9 of School Administrators thought that the program was effective and reduced recidivism and a majority thought it improved the school climate. Currently, as we sit here today, San Francisco has 65 middle School Students that are active on probation caseloads. We are already working with middle schoolers on our caseloads. Those middle schoolers are attending 18 different schools can San Francisco, coordinating and organizing our work with respect to that population of young people is just about creating more efficiency. It is not about expanding the scope of our work, it is not about changing the scope of what a probation officer does, it simply is about to reinforcing and concentrating the efforts of two of the probation officers within our department to liaison with those schools, and with those young people who are active with our department already, and to be a resource when there is a situation that occurs, that potentially could result in a referral to juvenile probation, but have a probation officer who could offer alternatives and other resources to which the young person could be connected. We are not looking to expand, we are looking to rearrange the services. To your earlier point, this is the first in five years that i have made a budget presentation where the conversation was about the operations of the department specifically and how existing funded positions are being allocated, and so this is somewhat unusual in that regard. And then the last thing i will say about this is that notwithstanding the fact that there is an ordinance that calls for the closure of Juvenile Hall by 2021, the fact remains that we still have to operate the Juvenile Hall and all of our Probation Services up until that point. And so to start carving away positions without any thoughtful analysis as to the impact or the programmatic impact is taking a step in the dark. It isnt based on any organized report or analysis and we find that somewhat public problematic. What i would recommend is before we start cutting positions where we havent done any thorough analysis that we engage in a staffing analysis, and then that report informs any decision that this board would make with respect to reductions in the budget. And i would completely support that. I do believe that as we continue to our level best to keep the number of young people in our juvenile Justice System down, to continue to enjoy as a result of ongoing and continuing based practices unless we have a thoughtful document that is based on a formal expert analysis to suggest otherwise. At this point, i would recommend that there is a need for us to serve the 65 young people who are already on our caseload in middle schools and in a more effective way, in an organized fashion with the schools that we are already in partnership with. Are you finished . Hilary, did you. Yes. I wanted to ask the budget and legislative analyst a question. Is Juvenile Hall currently overstaffed . From our brief review that we conducted last week, we do believe that Juvenile Hall is overstaffed currently. And that is because while the population of children being incarcerated at Juvenile Hall has declined by 67 , the staff at Juvenile Hall has only declined by 6 , is that right . Unfortunately, i dont have that number in front of me, but the population of children at Juvenile Hall is well below the capacity for the facility, and with the Log Cabin Ranch been closed recently, i believe that there were several positions that were shifted from Log Cabin Ranch to the Juvenile Hall. Thats right. I believe these numbers are correct, but correct me if i am wrong and if any of the official budget crunchers for the city, i understand that of the 23 positions that staffed Log Cabin Ranch, 19 were moved to Juvenile Hall, which is two thirds empty, so while the population of Juvenile Hall has declined over the years by 67 , the corresponding to staff reduction has only been by 6 . So my question to you is, how come you didnt recommend Budget Reduction or staff reduction at Juvenile Hall given that it is your opinion that it is overstaffed . We did make recommendations to eliminate one of supervising probation officer. Regarding the Juvenile Hall positions, they are filled positions, and because we have general direction not to reduce services or to eliminate a filled position without calling that out more clearly to the committee, we would not make that kind of recommendation. That makes sense to me. You dont usually recommend cutting filled positions. So even though Juvenile Hall is overstaffed, you would wouldnt recommend cutting those positions because they are filled positions. But why didnt you recommend cutting new positions . These four positions, they are four of six positions, by the way. Im not even trying to cut the other two, which, quite frankly, might be a mistake on my part, but i am going to let that go because the chief has made a case they are necessary, although i am not sure they are given that Juvenile Hall is overstaffed right now. Why cant you just shift positions over if it is overstaffed . Why didnt you recommend to the elimination of any of those six positions given they are all new positions . They are vacant, they are not currently staffed. They are not new positions as you stated, they are vacant positions that the department wishes to fill. We did conduct an analysis that we provided to your office. While we didnt make any recommendations in this area, we did state that the department is not planning to fill those Log Cabin Ranch councilors or the director position, and that if the board were to eliminate those positions, we do not because they do not plan on filling them, we do not think there would be a Significant Impact on the department services, but that the board should reduce the attrition savings line for those positions because they were not planning to fill those. For the deputy probation officer positions, we just believe that this is a policy matter for the board to make. We do believe that it would probably impact the departments ability to hire the timeframe of hiring other positions, however there is some uncertainty with the department s funding. We understand that the department is anticipating some right state Grant Funding to be coming in, which might assist them in hiring some of those positions. So some of those positions that are now under the general fund could potentially be funded by that state funding, which they have it would continue a pattern that they have been moving positions off of general fund to state funding to Grant Funding. All right. Thank you. I would just say to my colleagues, that the city has been asleep at the wheel when it comes to Juvenile Hall. We have been spending 13 million a year to incarcerate 40 children at any given time. Many of whom come out worse than when they went in, and we all admit that its overstaffed, but despite the drastic, which is great news, the drastic decline in the population of Juvenile Hall, but the staff is, for the most part, in the budget has, for the most part, remain stable on top of that, was shut down Log Cabin Ranch, which is overseen by the department, and we still havent significantly reduced the budget of this departments. Now is the time to start acting. The board of supervisors, by a 101 vote has decided to shut down Juvenile Hall by 2021, as the mounting evidence in the field shows that this punishment based system makes kids worse than better off. It is not a truly rehabilitative function. When children are locked in a cell for 12 hours a day, most of whom suffer from Mental Health illness and who have been traumatized the vast majority of their life, that that is not a method that helps in the rehabilitation. And despite that fact, i am making a motion to make a very, very modest cut to the budget. It is an overstaffed department, im not suggesting that we cut any filled positions, i am simply requesting that we cut four positions, which again, the evidence shows, and not just the evidence, commonsense shows that Law Enforcement should not be conducting Cognitive Behavioral Therapy. Therapy should be not someone who is responsible for punishing and incarcerating youth, it should be for someone that the youth can completely trust, who is a professional in the area of rehabilitation and studied in that field. I just dont understand why this would even be controversial, and quite frankly, im disappointed with all of us, including myself , from not having brought this up earlier because we have been, quite frankly, over spending money on this department for too long. Enough is enough. We need to start taking action now. Thank you very much. President he president he president he i am a little bit confused. There are four positions that you would like to fill, i believe that is what is on the table right now, and one question i will ask this question first, with the 65 middle schoolers that are under your umbrella, arent they already assigned caseworkers . Those probation officers those young people are assigned probation officers. Having a schoolbased probation officer would allow us to have coordination across the different schools with liaisons that are working specifically with School Administrators, councilors, and others, with respect to those young people in the various middle schools. Right now, it is disbursed. I think there is an opportunity for us to coordinate that in a way that is more efficient, especially with the younger individuals on the caseload. I have to comment that if young people were getting worse as a result of their involvement with San Franciscos Juvenile Hall, then our numbers would be going up. They are not. Our numbers are going down. Im fine, you can save those comments for later, that is not my question. So the other thing, i just need to clarify in my mind what i need to clarify to make a decision. The other week, when did you come here last . Im sorry. Was it last week . A week ago. When you were presenting why you wanted these schoolbased probation officers, it was to reach out to talk to middle school kids and there may not that may not even be on probation of any kind, and that was how you were selling it, im feeling like it seems like your argument or your rationale keeps on changing a little bit. The rationale is not changing did you not state that you were trying to reach out to more middle School Children that are not in trouble . I did not repeat all of the arguments that were submitted that the last hearing, but they are all still relevant and absolutely there is great value in having probation officers working with young people who are at risk, who are not yet involved in the juvenile Justice System, and being a resource to School Administrators with respect to other programs and services that are effective in working with those young people. That is an added benefit, it is not a different rationale okay. , so i did hear that. I apologize for not stating that. I just wanted to make sure i heard it right. So, since then, i have looked at many cases, and i didnt read it thoroughly, but i did read it. I also received some other communication by email or letter from one or two organizations that are pretty reputable in my eyes that really argue differently your points. It is one thing to say at this point, i believe that if i trust the researcher where the paper that they put out, it was more focused on those that are not in the system yet, that its actually not a good idea to mix that with probation officers. It didnt say much about the ones that are in the system, thats why i asked whether you have caseworkers already, and what are they doing. Are they supposed to be helping with that situation . So im beginning to feel like you have some legitimate arguments, but this is beginning to feel a little weak to me. I appreciate those comments. I would just clarify that probation officers are working primarily with young people in the community, and some of the young people on their caseloads do end up in Juvenile Hall, but probation officers in Juvenile Hall are not interchangeable with therapists. The staff who work in Juvenile Hall solely work inside the institution. The staff who work in Probation Services, the deputy probation officers, of which the four positions are a part, they work with young people in the community, not in custody, so they are working primarily with young people in the community. So when we talk about staffing levels, we cannot look at the Probation Departments full contingent of employees and make decisions about the capacity based on everybody who works in the department. The 19 positions that came over from Log Cabin Ranch are not all therapists working in Juvenile Hall. There were 11 that went into Juvenile Hall. There were cooks, secretaries, and analysts that also joined the department from Log Cabin Ranch. I believe that there is an opportunity for us to work with young people on probation in a more efficient manner then we have thus far, and while i recognize that there is this desire to incrementally reduce the departments budget and in anticipation of the closure of Juvenile Hall, we have to look comprehensively at all the programs and services that support that the department delivers and all of the obligations and responsibilities that we have before that decision is made. If i have one young person that is sitting at San Francisco General Hospital and i have to send two staff to supervise that young person, and if they are hospitalized in patients, that is two staff every eight hours, 24 hours a day. So while on the surface it looks like there are more than enough staff, there are very specific circumstances that require one on one or two on one supervision of the youth who is in our custody. And i think we have made the case that the needs of the young people in San Franciscos Juvenile Hall today are far more significant, far more trauma induced needs, and young people who require a higher level of supervision. And the last point that i will make on that is that while we have young people who are supervised directly by staff, we also have to have the capacity within an institution to deploy staff when there is an incident, and that cant happen if we are staffing at the bare minimum. We have to have a sufficient number of staff to respond to a Major Incident inside Juvenile Hall. And that is how we have staff the staffed the facility and i agree that there is an opportunity to look at further efficiencies in reduction. My only point is that if we are going to do that, it should be based on a thorough staffing analysis. Thank you. Youre welcome. Supervisor stefani . Thank you. I just want to add something really quick that, you know, i am open to cutting these four positions because i feel like we can reexamine their need as we do our work on the brute Blueribbon Panel, as we reimagine the juvenile Justice System, and as we work together. I want to make a point because this has been such a contentious topic and i think, often we dont always come from a place of hope, and we dont always come from a place of realizing how much we actually have accomplished in San Francisco, and i dont want to let that go. I want to emphasize that, you know, everyone on this committee wants Better Outcomes for youth. Everyone on this board of supervisors wants Better Outcomes for youth. Our mayor wants Better Outcomes for youth. I know you want the same thing, and that is something, i think, to celebrate in San Francisco. When we see what is happening on the federal level, when we see what is happening in texas with forprofit Child Detention Centers and people are fine with that, when we know that this board we are just talking about four positions that we can reexamine, we can look at, and we can get a better understanding of how do we do better by our youth in our middle schools. How do we do better by our youth you having to go to Juvenile Hall . I think we should actually celebrate the fact that that is all we are actually discussing here today is the fact that we can look at these four positions , reexamine them when we are looking at them in the Blueribbon Panel and continuing our work on this very important topic with you and with the mayor, and with this board. Although, obviously i was the 10 1 person, it is not because i thought that we cant do better, it is because i have a feeling that we are going to have a difficult time making that deadline. At the same time, it is not that i didnt think it was wellintentioned. We all want to do better by our youth. Including you, chief nance, you have done a lot of good things. While i am open to this cut today, i want to know and celebrate the fact that we are all working together to make it better for juvenile Justice System. Thank you. Thank you. Chief, i would just like to say that i think that it doesnt have a lot to do with the Juvenile Hall and the closing of Juvenile Hall. It is really about these four positions. As i stated before, i just dont think that for San Francisco public schools, and i have served on the school board for eight years before i came here, we are investing a lot in middle schools. We have a lot of Pure Resources now, and i feel like we are taking a different direction. We used to also have Police Officers in our middle schools, and we are weaning ourselves from that also. I think that the San Francisco Unified School District has invested a lot in. Councillors, they have invested a lot in Wellness Centers in certain schools, so i just think these positions actually are not even though youre working with the school district, i would just say, they are not necessary in our schools because we are actually, i think our schools are going in a different direction. I think what we have before us here today is really about these four positions, we would illuminate these four positions, including also the log cabin positions that the chief has already conceded to. Do we have consensus on the board about the four positions . On nod would be good. That is great. I would like to indicate to the controller. Can you please note that it isnt just notice to the committee to eliminate the four positions for the middle school and also the Cognitive Health groups, and so the Behavioral Health groups from the gpd budget. Okay. I would just like to know, thank you for your work and coming back again today. I know you answered a lot of questions. Im sorry that we have a difference of opinion about these positions. I understand. Thank you. Thank you very much. I dont do i continue those . Madame chair, would you like to call items four and five since recreation and park were not i would, please. Excuse me, do i need to do Public Comment on items one and 1212 . If you wish to do Public Comment now, you may do so. I dont believe we are ready to act on item number 1 and 2. You may decide to do this later. Okay. That is great. Lets call items four and 51 st. Thank you very much. Item number 4, ordinance amending the parkour to permit the Park Department to set emission fees for the job for the court tower elevator, the conservatory of flowers by a pricing based on certain factors item five, ordinance amending the park code to recommend the department to impose a sub charge of 1 dollar per nonresidential adults to serve at the Japanese Tea Garden to fund a restoration of that facility until such time as the restoration is complete. Thank you very much. I believe we have the general manager of recreation and park here. I am so sorry. This was me, i believe we have come to an agreement, and we have proposed language and amendments. So, did you have copies of those thank you very much. Colleagues, i believe to refresh your memories, i actually continued these items because they dont have an issue with the amount of surcharge, and i know that we need to raise some of these fees. I think one, the main reason is because he wanted to do flexible pricing so that we could actually help with spacing out of the people who attend i mean, who are visiting these venues so that it would alleviate some of the mass crowding that happened. And so i have asked recreation and park to come back with language that actually i dont have a problem with the flexible pricing and the pricing of up to 50 , what i had a problem with was that i wanted to have it set once a year so everyone can agree upon that for the year 2020. [please stand by] id like to start your time now i got to switch my strategy because you switched the goddamn topic. Would you like to start Public Comment . Nonresident, you got a lot of nerve talking about nonresident. You got 3,000 strike that you got 320,000 undocumented people that not residents in the city and county of goddamned San Francisco. And theyre not homeless. Is that clear . You got illegal immigration, getting brand new apartments, paying 2, 3 a month. Paying 3 a month for the past several years and he said he had increase in his rent and his rent has been increased to 80 a month for a brand new studio apartment. Is that fair . Then you got citizens, understand me, paying 3,000 a month for the same type of apartment. You have the audacity to talk about nonresidents paying fees. How come you dont talk about noncitizens . You have controversy over one area of the city for tourists to pay and you chance to charge yourself rent, you only charge yourself a 1 a month. Turns out its a 1 a year. How much you going to charge to have people go to the street in the world, lombard street. Nonresident people. Thats disgusting. Its not fair for you to switch the issue like that when a topic is being addressed and then you switch over like that. You got 8,000 homeless people. Then you got 320,000 [bell ringing] thank you. Thank you. Thank you, mr. Wright. The reason i did the reason i did not call Public Comment for items 1 and 2 is because we are not voting on that now. We will recess at 2 00. Were going to continue it and come back. And then after if you do Public Comment now on items 1 and 2, you will not be able to do Public Comment when we bring back the whole budget. And i think youre going to want to be there for that. [interjections] mr. Wright mr. Wright no. Done. Mr. Wright, were done here, mr. Wright. [interjections] i dont know, mr. Wright. And since im chair of this committee, i really dont know right now. Because right now time talking about items 4 and 5. Another Public Comment, im sorry. And then yes, so anyone that would like to have Public Comment, please line up. Everyone has two minutes. Mr. Wright took five, but here we go. John, here in the coit tower hat. I want to clarify the amendments, chair fewer, the amendments you handed me, they say are there is still a change or two in them. I want to clarify that what is in the language is what was stated, that the department will be able to lower fees i think at any time, which i dont think anyone disagrees with to incentivize visitation. And to raise fees up to 50 in different months, different for different attractions. It might be helpful to go through the attractions and explain to people when. What i cant tell from here is if the department can do this and let you know, or if the board needs to hold hearing like this and have potential back and forth, or clear understanding of what the fees are going forward. What i have in my hand, it doesnt say that the Department Needs to get approval before the fees take effect, which is what we would ask. Otherwise, the fees occur and all this is basically is a noticing requirement. So once a year, conditional and board approval would be what we would ask the ordinance to contain. If its going to be as you outlined, that this should be transparent, it should be open and have a good reason. If the amendments say that, i apologize, but i would ask if they do if they dont. Thank you. Good mid morning, supervisors. Im bonnie, im the area manager at San Francisco parks alliance. And i want to stress that San Francisco parks
comparemela.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.