Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Appropriations Committee 20240712

Declarations and directives. We will participate in the meeting through video as if present. Public comment will be available on each item on the agenda, both channel 26 and sf tv is streaming the number across the screen and each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Comments or opportunity to speak during Public Comment period are available rhea phone call by alling 415 6550001. The i. D. Is 146 8471266. Ten press pound twice. When connected, youll hear the meeting discussions and muted and in listening mode. When your item comes up, dial star three to be added. Call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, you may submit public email to the budget and Appropriations Committee clerk, linda wong. If you submit Public Comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors. Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of september 15th unless otherwise stated and that concludes my announcements. Thank you very much. Good morning, everyone, and welcome to the last day of hearings on changes and reductions that the Budget Committee would like to make to the department budgets. We reconvening the budgets and appropriatations meeting from yesterday. A few things to note before we begin. We have trailing legislation and all associated with the puc budget. Just as a reminder to new members of the public, the hearings this week are noticed separately, but this is all one meeting. Well be recessing, not ajourning at the end of everyday and taking backup the following day at 10 00 a. M. Weve had one continual meeting from wednesday, thursday and friday. For that reason, no Public Comment this week on the budget which is items one and two and all Public Comment will be heard on monday, august 24th at 10 00 a. M. No other business on monday, except to hear Public Comment. The budget and Appropriations Committee will recess at 12 120 or 1 00 p. M. For a lunch. Today we will recess at noon. We have five final departments we will finish with before lunch and then well have several departments who will be joining us this afternoon. As much as possible, we will be hearing the departments in the order lists, but i want to recognise that we sometimes need to accommodate scheduling conflicts and call departments out of order. Thanks in all in advance for your flexibility. Well be hearing likely in the following order, public p the pc utilitys commission, Public Health, the port and the airport. And then, i also want to say as i said the last two mornings, the process o of deciding on the budget for the city and county of San Francisco is somewhat adversarial and the mayor gets first bite and then we looks within that budget for efficiencies. When we find inefficiencies with the help of the budget legislative analyst, we then take out those monies and we will reappropriate to the boards issues and the majority going to the vulnerable communities in San Francisco and trying to close the gaps from the mayors budget with that money. But i do want to say, even though we start this, this process is add veer sailor advet to thank the publi employees. Theyre so important to city government. Thank you for your service, especially during covid19, where everyone has pitched in together to protect all of those in San Francisco and Department Heads who you may see us having a back and forth conversation thats heat, thank you for all of your service. I know that you are here fighting for your budgets because you want the resources to serve our public in the best way that you can. And so i want to appreciate them and i want to appreciate all of you, public employees, for all of the work that you do on an everyday basis and we have Great Respect for you and i want to honor all of the th effort ad work you have done. We have been training and legislation today which we will first take care of. And so, mr. Clerk, can you please call items three through nine. I think youre on mute right now. Item number three is an ordinance appropriatating 260. Three millions of hedge revenue and flow carbon trade revenue and power and water Revenue Bonds for the sfpuc Capitol Improvement program for 2020 to 2021 at 94. 3 million and fiscal year 2022 at 165. 9 million and placing 142. 9 millions of the power bond powes subject to the controllers certification of funds availability. Item number four is ordinance appropriating 4. 3 million, clean power sf revenue for the clean power sf Capitol Improvement program for 2020 to 2021 at 1. 8 million and 2021 to 2022 at 2. 4 million. Item number five is an ordinance appropriating approximately 479. 1 millions of proceeds Revenue Bonds, Water Resources control and loan funds or grant funds, waste water revenue and capacity fees for the sfpuc waste Water Enterprises capital Improvement Program for fiscal years 202at 178. 8 million and reappropriating 391. 4 million and placing 349. 9 million in Revenue Bonds or state loan or grant funds by project on controllers reserve subject to the controllers certification of funds availability. Item number significance is an aaroaaron appropriating 344 miln proceeds from Revenue Bonds, state of california, Water Resources, control boards Revolving Loan funds and Water Capacity fees for 2020 to 2021 at 132. 3 million and fiscal years 2021 to 2022 at 212. 7 million and appropriating 3. 5 million water Capital Project funding to waters fund balance in 2020 to 2021 and water capital appropriations in fiscal years 2020 to 2021 and placing 35. 9 million in state grant fund proceeds by project on controllers revenue project to the funds availability. Number seven is authorizing the issuance and sale of power Revenue Bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the puc and an amount not to exceed 142. 9 million to finance the costs of various Capital Projects, benefiting the power enterprise. Item number eight is an ordinance authorizing the issuance and sale of tax exempt or taxable waste water Revenue Bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the sfpuc in an amount not to exceed 34 349. 9 million benefiting the waste water enterprise and item number nine is an ordinance authorizing sale and tax exempt or Revenue Bonds as defined by the sfpuc in a principle amount not to exceed 347. 1 million to finance the cost of various capital water projects benefiting the water enterprise. Members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment should call 415 6550001, meeting i. D. 146 8472266 and then press pound twice. If you have not done so, please dial star three to line up to speak and a system prompt will indicate you have raised your hand approximately indicate until the system indicates you have been unmuted. Chair we have eric sandler from the utilitys commission. The floor is yours. Thank you. Im eric sandler, the cfo of the puc here to present pieces of legislation that are all about implementing our Capital Investment plan programs for the next two years. Next slide. As you heard, there are seven ordinances tied to the implementation of our capital budget. Four are supplemental appropriation ordinances that essentially identify a series of projects that comprise or capital program. Theres one for water enterprise, one for water and power and clean power assess. And then we have three debt authorization ordinances that authorize us to issue Revenue Bonds or other forms of indebtedness to fund all or a portion of the programs and i would just point out that we have a couple of amendments. One to the waste water supplemental appropriation ordinance and then an amendment to all of the debt authorization ordinances and ill point this out as we go along. So the waste water capital supplemental is 579. 2 million over a twoyear period and Improvement Program, renewal and replacement, as well as waste water facility and the amendment that i refer to and an error on page 13, line 23, the correct number is 57,174,566 to be placed on controllers preserve. Next slide. The water capital supplemental appropriates 344. 8 million over a twoyear period and places 223. 5 on controllers reserve and funds Regional Water projects as well as local water projects including treatment plan improvements, water diversification and supply projects, et cetera. The next supplemental for the water and power and thats for our facilities of country that are either solely water, power or joint facilities and they have ordinance appropriating 260. 3 million over the twoyear period and places 142. 9 on controllers reserve for the pipeline improvement to mountain tunnel improvement and distribution projects in the city and general Fund Energy Efficiency improvements to lower costs. Pair indiscernible . There are demand response programs, electric mobility, local renewable. Next slide, please. So now, im turning to the the debt Organization Ordinance and we only have three because we issue power, waste water or water bombs. So the first authorization is for power bomb and the amendment issues referring Revenue Bonds after adoption to the ordinance. Essentially, we had revenue bond refunding authorization which allows you to save by refinancing the outstanding debt and expired in june and we have a number of refinancing opportunities, particularly in the water enterprise that can realize about 105 million in savings over the life of the debt and we want to be able to immediately enter the market and thats why the amendments are appearing in the financing authorization. Next slide. This next ordinance refers to authorization of revenue bond issuance for the waste water of 349. 9 million and, again, the same amendment as i discussed in the power ordinance and finally, we have the Water Revenue Fund authorization ordinance, authorizing 347. 1 million of issuance of water revenue bond and an amendment, again, clarifying the implementation schedule for revenue refunding bond issuance. And that concludes my presentation and im happy to answer any questions. Chair i believe we have a daily report on these items. So could the bla present on items three through nine. Good morning, chair. And, yes, item three is an appropriation to the revenue and other funds for the Capital Projects and item number seven is the authorization to issue power bonds. We summarize the sources of uses bonds on page three of our report and in terms of the impact on power rates, we discuss that on page five with about a one year increase over the next few years from the municipal customers and a three per year increase for other customers and we recommend approval. Puitem number four is 4. 3 millin in clean power revenues and we summarize the uses of these funds on page 11 of our report and we recommend approval. Item number five is appropriating funds from waste water revenue bunds and item number seven is the issuance of waste water Revenue Bonds. We summarize the sources and uses of these on page 14 of our report. In terms of the impact on rates, we discuss that on page 17 and there would be an eight rate in 2021 and 2022 for customers. In terms of waste water sewer rates. And we recommend approval. And then items number six and nine. Item number six appropriates funds of water Revenue Bonds to water capital programs and item nine approves issuance of water Revenue Bonds. Sources and uses are summarized on page 27 of our report and then in terms of the impact on water rates, it would be a 7. 8 increase in customer water rates in 2021 and seven. Nine increase in water rates in 2 12 and we recommend approval. Chair it looks like the bla has recommended approval on items three through nine and i understand there are some amendments that were presented and could the public utilitys commission please present those amendments now. So the water supplemental, john, are you doing this or am i . Yes, i can take this on. Chair excuse me, can you please refer to it by the item number . Yes, i can. This is john scarpula with the sfpuc and i will work through the amendments right now. File number 230822, the capital supplemental. Chair thats item number five, ok and you have an amendment for item number five. Correct, thank you, supervisor. And that is on page 14, line 23 and were replace the amount of 170,869,000. 66 with the correct total of 57,174,566. Chair thats a big difference. Yes. Chair and any other amendments . On that item, no, but i will move on to file number 200836. Chair thats item number seven. Correct. And on that item, we are looking at a couple of different amendments. Ill start with page eight, lines five through nine and so youll see that amendment authorizes the issuance of refunding Revenue Bonds immediately after their adoption. And so thats the first and then there are several other smaller grammatical revisions throughout the document and should i run through each of those or thats the main crux . Chair thats fine. Thank you. I will move on to file number 200837. Chair that is item number eight. And thats page nine, lines 15 through 19. And, again, this is authorizing the issuance of refunding Revenue Bonds immediately after the adoption of the ordinance. Press star 3. Please let us know if there are any callers wishing to comment on the items. Madam, chair, there are no callers in the queue. Chair three through 9 are now closes for public items. I would like to adopt 5, 7, 8 and 9. Could i have a second, please . Second. Chair can i have a role call vote, please, mr. Clarke. Clerk. Can i clarify the second . Supervisor walton. Pair. To accept 5, 7, 8 and 9. role call . Chair i would like to move these items. Could i have a second, please. Second. Chair role call vote, please, mr. Clerk. role call . There are five ayes. Chair that was our trailing legislation and we will hear from the public utilitys commission and i believe we have eric sandler, julie ellis, Michael Carmen and charles pearl. The public utilitys commission, the floor is years. Before we do that, should i read items 1 and 2 . Chair thank you. Item number on 1 the appropre ordinance appropriatating all expenditures for departments of the city as of july 31st, 2020 for years ending june 30, 2021 and june 3 30, 2022. This is continuing, creating or establishing these positions. Chair thank you very much and now lets hear from the public utilitys commission. Chair fewer, we presented a presentation at the last meeting and we are in agreement with the budget analyst and it was certainly we really appreciate all of the work of the budget analyst, particularly miss martin. They were difficult substantives, we are in agreement with the budget analyst. Chair im glad you came to an agreement. Improve heard it was, you know, difficult conversation, but im glad you came to an agreement. And so, yes, present yee. Youre on mute, president. Can you explain why puc would be using vehicles and im talking about passengertype vehicles and why youre using quite a number of luxury vehicles. Thank you, supervisor yee. The top three reasons we rent vehicles is that we have Construction Projects and infrastructure is the largest user of shortterm. Projects are shortterm and when thats over, we relinquish the vehicle and we rent the vehicle if the vehicle is totaled and no budget to replace it. We utilize a contract that is a citywide contract that oca manages with enterprise. The specifications are unclear what they will pay for. Thprintwe do not pay any more te citys contract rates for the vehicle. It seems like these vehicles you lease for not just one or two days or a week, and it seems lengthy. Why is it . We have Construction Projects and with the needs for vehicles can increase in decrease dramatically depending on the construction management. indiscernible . I had a hard time understanding what you just said. We try to manage our fleet effectively and there are a number of we had in our budget a number of recommendations for a replacement about 36, for 1. 47 million and was included in the twoyear budget and there is potentially a higher likelihood we would need to rent vehicles over the next two years. I didnt want to keep on asking. Its not you. Its the sound system. And what ill do, this issue will be brought back up. Well provide more information. To get more information and maybe more written because for whatever reason, i cant understand what youre saying very well. Its not your fault. Chair mr. Sandler, would you please provide for this committee the information that present yee is requesting and could you please respond in writing to us . Definitely. Chair thank you, president yee. Thank you, chair fewer. Im looking at this budget and looking at the bla reductions and im a little concerned about whats going on with the super green with clean power sf program and i dont know if were getting budgetary savings out of the fact that clean power does not appear to be up and running in the way that we want it up and running but im wondering why its not up and running. Whats going on with clean power sf . What is it, 40 vacancies and it seems like were ramping down our markets for the program . So i will try to answer this and any of my colleagues can feel free to jump in. This was definitely in an area where we had a lot of back and forth with the budget analyst. In terms of staffing, our strategy was to staff up to meet organizational needs. It was noted there were a number of vacancies. We had temporary positions and we are a great Training Ground for other cpas and so we have had quite a bit of turnover in the Clean Power Program because people get great experience and theres a proliferation of ccas throughout the bay area. Thats our be vancancy rate. Our budget director, laura bush. We cant hear you. I think youre on mute, miss bush. Sorry. Good morning. Im laura bush, the budget director of the sfpu c. There has been a massive impact on clean power search f. There are many positions in the process of being hired and earlier this year, they were put on hold due to the emergency. Were ramping that back up and we have a plan to staff up the program over the coming year. And what do they do to that, staffing newspaper. Up . We took a look at the hiring plan and which positions we intended to hire over the year and came to a compromise over a slight increase to our attrition rate to reflect that. So this will look better next year . Yes. And why were you underspending on marketing . This is a high priority and for a number of reasons, we are not a monopoly and have a bunch of new positions. Were going to be really trying to fully expend our marketing dollars over the coming year. This tthis is another area where have to have Difficult Conversations about the budget in the coming years. Because you havent been spending you on marketing and were holding you at that level. Can we hear from the bla about this . Chair yes, bla, mr. Goncher. Yes, im with the budget and legislative analyst office. Just with regards to the attrition, we did generously estimate what would be appropriate attrition on the Clean Power Programs own hiring schedule. With regard to the marketing, we saw professional Services Contracts were increased significantly, the development and marketing. They scaled that back and did not increase the source of funding. My understanding is that the Marketing Budget is still increasing, but not increasing as much. This is juliet with external affairs and i would jump in to reinforce what our budget director and agm sandler said and i think it really is in response to the question around marketing, so as we went back and forth with the bla budget, you know, director of communications who oversees that entire program was very engaged to defend the dollars, to really reflect the fact that theres a lot of marketing that suggests required by law with these Clean Power Programs and even the fundamental equal o and the numf notices that go out and the number of people that are moving and that the feedback that weve gotten that we fully agree needs to happen with regards to more robust, innovative ways because our director of the budget describes, were not a monopoly, were with water and waste water and people have choices to opt out of the Clean Water Program and we were in the exact position you are with regards to just an awareness and understanding that marketing for this type of program is extremely program for us to be able to retain customers as well as to grow the program. And do it with language, access and all of the other thanks are extremely important for us. Yeah, i will i know that our chair is deeply familiar with the clean power sf program and cares a lot about it. And so this gives me concern, but if she is feeling that this will allow this program to expand in the ways that it needs to, then, you know, i guess i can accept this, but im a little worried about the state of it. Chair supervisor mandleman, that in our last discussions, you know, we have pushed back a little bit on the puc about the markets and actually, actually,k they presented a fabulous marketing plan. Not only that, i think theyve made great gains and so i have faith with this budget and the way its designed that they actually can continue that progress. Any other questions or comments from my colleagues . I think were in general agreement with the bla recommendations. So i would like to tell the Controllers Office to please take note that this committees intentions is to accept the bla recommendation for this department. Thank you very much and next we have the department of Public Health. And dr. Grant kolfax and his team. The floor is yours. Good afternoon. In this era of the covid19 pandemic which is also highlight, we continue to focus on our priorities of addressing health improve equities, Behavioral Health and further with regard to the complicating factors of implications of climate change, i am pleased to say that we are in cu concurrene with the blas report and we would like to thank the bla staff in working with our team to reach that agreement. I know that there have been some conversations with regard to the reinvestments from the Public Safety funds with regard to putting those dollars into a reserve. We would strongly prefer those not to be put in a reserve in order to allow those resources to get to the communities who need them most. Thank you and were here to take any additional questions. Chair supervisor ronen. Thank you. I wanted to talk to you about Mental Health assess. And so, supervisor mandelman, hainey and i have been having side conversations with your team, dr. Kolfax, your Behavioral Health team, as well as your finance team, about making changes to the plans for Mental Health health sf so that the street Response Crisis Team could be increased by two from four to six and so that the Mental Health Health Center could operate 24 hours a day. My understanding where we are at right now or mr. Wagner, please try to clarify, is that we are going since were balancing the whole budget on the assumption that the gross, receipts will pass, there is onetime money in that budget for capital repairs that well be able to use to transform the Behavioral Health Access Center into the division of the Mental Health assess Service Center and because we assumed that in the original budget you have for Mental Health sf that 8 million would come from the general fund in order to fund those capital repairs, your team has been able to spread that 8 million out into operations so that we could make those changes that i just discussed. My understanding and, greg, it would be good for you to confirm or deny, my misunderstand, based on our back and forth, is that we would still be short an additional 763,480 and greg and i can have a conversation about whether or not thats the right figure right now. And ill explain how i got to that number. Im hoping we can have that conversation now and im first wanting to ask mr. Wagner if he can confirm these numbers and let me walk you through how i got to this deficit that we have in the first year. So what mr. Wagner has been able to do is to get us to a point where by using that 8 million in capital dollars that was originally from the general fund but that were instead going to take from proxy capital dollars should it pass, we are in the first year and im looking at the spreadsheet that mr. Wagner sent me that in the first year of the budget, we have a 9,784,151 surplus. In the second year be we have a 9,247,631 deficit. And so, my first question is, are you able to take that surplus from the first year and use it to cover the deficit in the second year . I hope im explaining myself. Im greg wagner and so weve been in conversations, it looks like, and ben rosenfield, the controller may want to Say Something, but weve been in conversations with the Controllers Office and the Mayors Office and it looks like that is technically possible to appropriate onetime cover the onetime cost with the onetime funding, which would leave savings in the first year. And as you said, then that would potentially be available to cover the second year and youre probably getting there, but i think the outstanding question then becomes not as a technical question but a policy issue for the mayor and board of supervisors on the third year, where we would have a deficit after the second year being adopted. Yes, so lets take this one step at a time because we need to catch the rest of the Budget Committee with the rest of the conversations weve been having. But let me just make sure i can understand it so we can catch them up. So, therefore, i just sent you indiscernible . You had sent me an email i dont know why im getting that feedback. If this plan goes into effect which i will explain to the entire committee as soon as i understand it, then we still have a 763,480 gap in the first year of budget. Do you agree with me on that point, greg . And if you do, then i can explain it but if you dont, then im still confused. So here is how the math works. Over the three years, if we do the swap that we just described, using onetime funds for the capital expense, that takes us to a twoyear surplus of 536 thoughted. Thats right. Over the two years. And then the cost of the additional is 1. 3 million. Im trying to do the math on the fly. If i can help you out, the cost of adding the. 5 team would be is. 3 million and so if you subtract 536,520 from 1. 3 million, we get 763,480. Let me just take a look here. 1. 367 million would be the additional cost and so thats very close. I think i had given you a rounded number. Got it. But were on the safe page where were at. Yeah. Thats the important thing. So the policy question before us, then and i have some ideas and questions for you on how we would cover that 763 plus gap that we have to get to. But the overall broad policy question before us is if we are ready to take a leap and fully implement Mental Health sf with this 24hour crisis team Mental Health Service Center going into effect this year, which is what gives me comfort red reducing te Police Budget, because we need a team with expertise working 24 hours a day addressing the Mental Health crisis on the street, we can fund it in years one and two fully, assuming the gross receipt tax passes. We have a problem in year three where that onetime money that were going to get from prop c, that well get in one fell swoop, that were using a bunch of that money in order to fund the full implementation of the Mental Health sf in year one and two will be used up. So what that will mean is that in year three, which were not dealing with in this budget, but we need to be cognizant with for the future, we would have an 11 million gap. Is that right . Yes, it is. An 11 million gap. Closer to 12, but yes. Ok, not in the spreadsheet you just gave me, but i believe you. Between 11 and 12 million gap. And so, the reason that i think we should move forward despite having to fill that gap in the future is because we are under so much uncertainty. We have the salary tax on the budget. We have the gross receipts tax on the budget and both of those two Revenue Generating measures will, if they pass, will bring in enough money to cover that 11 million gap. When we passed Mental Health sf unanimously, the mayor wrote us a letter promising to fully fund Mental Health sf if theres new revenue coming in to the city. And those two would be the new revenue coming in. Now, if one or both of these dont pass, were going to be redoing the whole budget anyway. Because our entire budget is predicated on the fact that this gross receipts is going to pass. So when were redoing the entire budget anyway, we can then redo Mental Health sf. And so i feel comfortable starting the process if in november, the gross receipts tax doesnt pass and we readdress the entire budget, we can readdress Mental Health sf with it and then well also know if the salary tax passes. So that is my desire and recommendation for this budget and would ask the support of my colleagues on this. And then after we get passed this point, we still have another point which is how to fill this 763,000 deficit in the first year. And i want to ask questions to dph about that, but before that, i wanted to see if theres any questions from my colleagues on this first point and im sorry this is so confusing. Please tell me if i can make it easier to understand. Chair president yee. In terms of trying to ramp up for this Additional Team, i guess yes. So the idea would be that they would be up and running or this Additional Team would be up and running when . please stand by . You know, if the optimistic math goes right, at least we will be able for say that were trying to redirect all 21,000 of those calls. And i kind of think if this goes well, it may be that in the future we do need to add maybe even another team. But this is like a first cut at what it would take to have all 21,000 of those calls at least have the First Response being Police Officers, which i think as a moral matter and a matter of you are speaking correctly for me. I think something that we must do and we must find the funding for it somewhere, somehow it is imperative. Commissioner yee im not questioning the value of this. I get that part. Im trying to get to the budget part of it. You dont have to convince me. I guess supervisor ronen, as you alluded to, theres a lot of assumptions in this budget. And im going to support it. And so im trying to like figure out the timing of all this stuff. Commissioner haney can i can i finish explaining the timing for you. Just really quickly. What we learned yesterday from the Fire Department is that theyre currently working on the floor team. If we put this money in the budget for them, that they will have the additional two teams up and running by february or march of next year. Okay. So i think i feel a little more comfortable with your proposal, knowing that we probably have some time to back off off of that and find some other money. If in november, you know, its not going to work, thats all i want to get to. Then im a lot more willing to support what youre saying. I wanted to clarify the joint program with fire in this extremely important program. It is a priority for the department. We are working to get it scaled up as kickly quickly as possible. We have not identified Behavioral Health staff for implementation. The Crisis Response teams are very understaffed with current demands and working hard with fire to find additional staff and hire them to do the work. I just wanted to clarify that. Commissioner fewer thank you. So supervisor ronen, if i may ask, so were trying to get these two Additional Teams up and running by february. And the budget part by march, right. And the cost of the Additional Teams is what again . Commissioner ronen frank, do you know the answer to that . Commissioner fewer or mr. Rosenfeld or somebody knows the cost of the additional two teams were trying to get up and running. We have the funding for the four teams. Were looking for funding for the two teams, is that correct . Yeah. Commissioner ronen go ahead, greg. The difference between the four teams and the the four teams proposed in the mayors budget and the full team is one second here. Im sorry. Commissioner fewer youre kind of breaking up. Pardon me. Through the chair, jenny the c. F. Op. The cost one Additional Team for the Crisis Response is about 1. 8 million. So if we were looking at two teams, it would be about 3. 6 million, 3. 7 million for an additional two teams. On top of the four that were assumed in the madam chair budget. Commissioner fewer thats great. The cost of the two Additional Teams would be 3. 7 million. Supervisor ronen, is that the number youre working off of . Commissioner ronen now i just got confused. Greg is telling us. 5 teams is 1. 367 million. I can clarify that. The number that miss louie just gave you is a full year. But when one of a fullyear plus, a partial year and the first year. I think were talking about theres per year and then theres the cost over the twoyear. The cost of two teams for the two years is actually 5 commissioner fewer could you give me that number again. The twoyear budget cycle is how much . Im sorry. You were kind of going in and out. Okay. The cost of the two teams over the twoyear budget cycle is 5,470,771. And so thats a partial year in the first year. Well, its a full year in the second year. Commissioner fewer supervisor ronen, is that the amount that you come up with also . Commissioner ronen great question. Let me ask one more question. When does it when does the first year, when does that start for these numbers . In that figure it is halfway through the year. Commissioner ronen oh, i see. So this starts halfway through the fiscal year . Correct. Commissioner ronen so encarnacion what month . So january . Commissioner fewer mr. Wagner, are you looking from january 2021 . January of fiscal year 2021. So this coming january. Yeah. Commissioner fewer fiscal year your calculation is in fiscal year january 2021, is that correct . Correct. Now were getting into the second part of this discussion, how were going to fill the 763,000 debt. And one way is that we know that these teams are not going to get up and running. I think its safe to say, because we need the hiring and training side on the first part and the hiring and training part on d. P. H. s part. I think thats going to be a heavy lift for these four teams we need right now. I would feel comfortable starting them in march. So if we started them in march, how much would it bring down that 763,480 debt . 900,000. Commissioner fewer you would save about 900,000 . Correct. Commissioner fewer i think, supervisor, ronen, it looks like budget deficit. Okay. And were you and again once the records, i think this is hard for listening public actually to follow. Commissioner ronen i think so. Commissioner fewer so supervisor ronen, what youre saying now is that we would be saving so we now are asking mr. Wagner for a calculation between march 2021 and the end of the fiscal year 2022, is that correct . Commissioner ronen no. The end of the fiscal year 2021. Correct, greg . Commissioner fewer the end of the fiscal year 2021 . Yeah. So march of 2021. So about seven, eight months from now. Commissioner fewer okay. And president yee, did you have your hand up . Commissioner yee yeah. I mean, if these tax measures do pass, is there still a deficit . Im trying to if theres enough funding to fund it fully, can we then bring it back to, you know, for january . Commissioner ronen i can explain that. So the mayor has fully funded has fully funded the implementation of the additional beds as, you know, a flow as determined by the doctor has planned. She has fully funded the implementation of the office of coordinated care. The two things that she didnt fully fund, but significantly funded, were the Crisis Response team. She funded for, not the six that we need. And she only funded she funded the Mental Health Service Center with some hours during the weekends and some extended hours during the week, but not 24 hours. So what we would have to do, if the gross receipts doesnt pass, is were going to have to go back to her original budget, which i would be comfortable doing. I mean, we dont have a choice, right. So basically what supervisor mandelman, haney and i have been able to do during this budget, with the incredible help of the fiscal team and the Bay Area Health team at d. P. H. Weve had tons of meetings about this offline. Weve been able to take again that 8 million in capital upgrades that are need and theyve been able to use that for the first two years of ongoing costs, of the operational costs. We have a cliff in the third year that were going to have to figure out next budget year how to fund. And im saying we can figure that out and we have revenue, if those two things pass. If they dont, so lets say the gross receipts if the gross receipts passes, well deal with it next budget year. And maybe have to have a special hearing on it. About the gross receipts doesnt pass, we have to redo this whole budget and go back to where what the mayor funded for Mental Health s. F. Yee im commissioner yee im actually suggesting we be more aggressive with the timing, if it passes. Im not and supervisor mandelman said no, because why . Commissioner mandelman because they dont believe they can staff up enough just to move any faster. If supervisor ronen and haney and i could get these six teams on the ground tomorrow, i think that we would be pushing for a budgetary solution that would allow that to happen. But i think that theres a feasibility problem in terms of hiring and training, staffing, all the stuff that has to go into place. What we heard from the team is really and they think this is aggressive. Theyre going to do everything they can to get four up and running by the end of this calendar year. Great. And then if we get them more money, they will move as quickly as they can to get two more up and running. Honestly thats going to take until march or april of next year. All of these are im just going to imagine, although i imagine theyre aggressive. So i think were being i dont think we can push the staff. I dont think we would say we want to fully fund this in january. Because i dont think were going to fully fund this in january. Commissioner fewer yeah. I think we heard yesterday from the Fire Department commissioner yee i was trying to be helpful and give you more money. Commissioner fewer thank you. Commissioner mandelman thank you, president yee. Commissioner fewer what we heard from the Fire Department yesterday, they were reluctant to over promise. You know what i mean. We have mr. Rosenfeld i believe he has a process suggestion. Good afternoon. I was simply going to suggest, we certainly understand the proposal that supervisor ronen have outlined. Its a complicated set of amendmentamendments that you nee to make this happen to the budget. I was going to suggest that we can prepare with Public Health what the amendments look like and then bring it back to you at a subsequent meeting for your consideration and action. It does involve rearranging sources and uses in a pretty complicated way. And it also changes appropriations if different fiscal years, which may require growing the budget in some cases. So kind of decreasing in one year and increasing for another. There may be pieces of this ma the Mayors Office needs to work with. We hope to be done with this process, you know, by next wednesday. I am happy, though, to have this item come back on wednesday for further discussion. But it will have to be a quick discussion. This will not be a full discussion. This will be a proposal of what we discussed today. And that we will have to vote on it. Okay. So its just that we want the process not to linger on. I think that we have a commitment to end it by midnight on wednesday. And i think all of us are looking forward to that. So if i could make that suggestion. I think it would be great. I think that we have a couple of other items, Public Health, are you in agreement with the rest of the recommendations from the b. L. A. . Yes, we are. Commissioner fewer okay. Thats great. I would also say, yes, supervisor ronen. Commissioner ronen thank you so much. I just i just really wanted to appreciate everyone. You know, i have been working on Mental Health s. F. For a couple years now. And i think we all got off to a really shaky start, where supervisor mandelman, the mayor and supervisor haney and i were not all on the same page. And the doctor and the health department. And i just want to appreciate everyone so much, because we are now all on the same page. We are now working together in a collaborative, incredible way. We all have the same end goal, the same, you know, vision of how were going to get there. And i want to just really appreciate the mayor for really not only keeping to her promise that she made to us, but doing so in the worst budget year ever. That she funded the vast majority of Mental Health s. F. And then i want to thank supervisor mandelman, who re we started off not agreeing on this to working together and coming together and advocating to really just push it to the end and get it all implemented. And then the Incredible Team at the department of Public Health, who has met with us more times than i can count to figure this all out. And, you know, greg is always just incredible. Hes been incredible since the first day i met you, when you were budget director, mr. Wag wagner. I appreciate you so much. You know, mr. Colfax and doctor and the whole team, theyre getting us through a Global Pandemic and yet have still prioritized this. And i just feel the biggest amount of gratitude to you all. And i cant tell you how happy i am to be working on the same page. And i know were going to be successful because of it. So thank you, everyone. Commissioner fewer thank you very much. I missed supervisor mandelman in the queue. My apology. Commissioner mandelman asking about the details of the b. L. A. Report. I do share supervisor ronens excitement about this. And it makes me feel like theres alignment here. I do feel honestly like, you know, supervisor ronen is an ass kicker and some ass needed some kicking. And i think, you know, it does feel like were moving in a better direction. And i do think, you know, people came at this from different places. And but in a lot of ways i think there was alignment underlyre lining a lot of it. I think as different people have come to understand the knowledge and what different people are seeing different pieces of this. The workers at the front line at s. F. General are seeing this in a very different way from administrators who have to make it work, seeing it in a different way from constituents, seeing it in a different way from people who are spearser who are experiencing the system. I think what supervisor ronen and haneys effort has led to is all of these different voices getting heard and coming together. And i think a lot of people have worked really hard on this consensus. You know, i think you know, i feel really good about it. So, you know, and as supervisor ronen pointed out, our Global Health department, although we are frustrated with it often in many ways, is doing extraordinary, extraordinary things right now. Has done extraordinary things in the past, continues to do extraordinary things now. And this stuff is really hard. And if we figure it out, well be able to beat ourselves up a little bit less, because well be a model for everybody else. Nobody is doing this stuff well i dont think in Public Health systems in the united states. So but with that i do want to ask the mundane questions of the b. L. A. Cuts. Because i worry about cuts to Public Health. I know if theyre saying yes, i want to understand whats being lost. My questions about d. P. H. 4, d. P. H. 7, and d. P. H. 8. And d. P. H. 9. So i worry about cutting i. T. For a department that has such terrible when the b. L. A. Itself has pointed out the ethic implementation and other things. Whats going on with the d. P. H. Recommendation for and why should i not be worried about that . That might be for dan. Sure. Supervisor mandelman, so we did conduct an analysis of the centralized i. T. Projects budget. We looked at the previous expenditures as well as what they were planning to do. In our assessment, we decided to recommend a reduction of 480,000 to reflect the Program Budget that the department was actually [indiscernible] commissioner mandelman all right. We all recognize they need to do a ton of work on the i. T. And this is about as much as they can get done in the next year. And d. P. H. Is basically accepting that . Correct. Commissioner mandelman okay. Then since d. P. H. 7 is reducing the budget allocated for [indiscernible] by 800,000 to reflect spending. Can you say just a little bit more about what that means. Sure. We looked at typically 1819 actual expenditures, as well as 1920 projected, even though the year is over. Because were at the yearend, still yearend closings. We did based on that we did a projection of their underspending historically on the professional and specialized services. And they we found the department was under spending these. When we make the reductions, we always leave some cushion. We dont cut it to the bone. So we felt like this was a reasonable reduction to make in the line items to reflect what their actual spending is. Commissioner mandelman okay. D. P. H. Is accepting that. I will accept that. The last question i have, im going to skip d. P. H. 8, because it is a small relatively small amount. My colleagues are here to move on to other things, right, chair fewer. I do want to at least touch on d. P. H. 9, because i do feel like the work of the director of Mental Health has really been valuable to the Mental Health s. F. Process. They work parallel efforts. But i think [indiscernible] as i was starting to understand some of the i hope this is not offensive, brokenness in Behavioral Health services that i thought she needed a point person who was going to be like shaking you know, poking around and looking at everything and understand what wasnt working. And i dont know. They might well have done it without that suggestion. But they did it and i was glad they did it. I think that the dr. Lucy bland has come up with some really valuable information for Mental Health s. F. And has informed all of us about 4,000 folks who are out on the streets, who have these different diagnosis, there was not coordination between d. P. H. And d. H. D. Getting if the highest users prioritized for housing and shelter. And now in doing the modeling study, which again i think underestimates the need. But is at least finally something more than a feeling about what bed as we need to increase. So i dont want to lose that work. And i want to understand what is being lost by taking a hundred thousand dollars 500,000 out of that pot . Appreciate that. We dont believe anything will be lost. This was a problematic budget. They received funding to begin the Mental Health s. F. Before the measure passes. Theyll have such a short time to spend the funding, because its through november. And so the department in discussions about this, the department was comfortable reducing the funding by 100,000, due to the limited amount of time to actually spend the funds. Commissioner mandelman maybe for the department, what is the money getting used for . Through the chair, these dollars were essentially as part of mayor breeds Mental Health reform project. We received two years of project funding, while the doctor actually conducted hits work along with some Staff Members and dollars to support the analytical work that hes doing. It was only meant to be a twoyear project and the funding was budgeted to end at the end of this current fiscal year 2021. And to be clear, we are not reducing his work or his services. But we are going to transition some of the work to operations instead. And reducing the reliance on project funding for their support. Its a shift of funding supportses to this project to operating. And there will be were just going to start that transition earlier in this fiscal year, because we do need to find a solution of more important work that he and his staff are doing. So we agreed for this onetime reduction and to start that shift earlier. But in short your concerns, we do not want the work to end. We find it valuable. And we are trying to continue it in a different way. Commissioner mandelman i have definitely as i said, appreciated having actual data and someone actually looking at whats going on in the system. Thats incredibly important as Critical Care gets stood up. And as we look to be making smart investments. It has to be gathering data, measuring it, and seeing where its needed. So, all right. Im satisfied. Thanks, everyone. Thanks to the b. L. A. And d. P. H. And im done. Chair fewer thank you very much. And so i see supervisor walton in the queue. Commissioner walton thank you, chair fewer. I will be very quick. I just want to thank the department for the reductions and also want to thank dr. Colfax for speaking about what i was going to also address. And just make sure that we do the same thing we did with oewd yesterday and not place the 36 million in funding for the investment of the black community on reserve. I want to appreciate dr. Colfax for also mentioning his support for that. Keeping in mind we do have a blueprint for how were going to make sure that this body has the opportunity to provide oversight with the report of proposed expenditures and updates on the process to expend funds. And i just want to again say thank you to the department and i hope my colleagues low pressure grant the same opportunity, so we can get the money in the community quickly. And appropriately. Thank you. Chair fewer the budget legislative analyst like to speak on that, the particular recommendations . Sure, chair fewer. This is as supervisor walton alluded to, this is a very similar to our recommendation that was presented yesterday on the office of economic and workforce development. This is a recommendation number is d. P. H. 25 on page 10 of our report. It is to put 36 million of the Public Safety reinvestment initiatives on budget and finance committee reserves. Its part of a larger 120 million reinvestment. We did recommend that as a way that the budget and finance committee and the board of supervisors could exercise more oversight over the [indiscernible] chair fewer okay. Supervisor walton, do you have a recommendation on how to ensure oversight . As yesterday we set a report. For this situation what i would ask, Public Health is coming back to us next wednesday. If you could also think about a measure that would give the assurance to the board that theres some oversight and present that, along with your recommendations to take this out of the recommendations from the b. L. A. Are not to adopt the recommendations, to hold it in reserve. That would be a very good process to abide by for our next wednesdays discussion. So well be voting on that along with that. If you could bring forth to our committee a suggestion about language around having some oversight. I think you heard everything that we said yesterday applied through to this. And i think theres probably a compromise we can come to, that also meets your desires. Would that be amenable to you, supervisor walton . Commissioner walton yes. Chair fewer i do have one question for Public Health. On the Committee Meeting of february 2019ing the contract for Westside Community Mental Health center came before us. And we had much discussion on it. WestSide Community Health Center is the main provider of Mental Health services for the Africanamerican Community in the fillmore district. The Westside Community Mental Health center the b. L. A. Had questions about it. Because actually it didnt meet a lotter it wasnt scoring very high actually on the standards and the metrics of the standards. So the answer to that was that Public Health said we will then lower the amount of patients that they will see, in order lower their case load to meet their ability to, knowing we had great need for Mental Health services for africanamericans in San Francisco. Knowing that this is a mental there are always 100 of their population that they serve are africanamericans. And also they serve adult and youth and there is not another service in that area or perhaps even on the west side that actually does these services. I pushed back on the department of Public Health to say it is not enough to say that you will actually lower the amount of deliverables that they will have to deliver and actually lower the case load. In fact, it is the responsibility of the department of Public Health to provide infrastructure support to provide the demand, because there is a great demand. I would like an update on that a. I would like to know what procedures have been followed. Are they taking the case load that we originally had wanted them to perform. We now there was great need. I have not seen anything actually as an update to this. So again this is the februar february 2019 budget. Yeah. Budget Committee Meeting about west Side Community Health Center. I know that i did not bring this to you forward before. But if since were meeting next wednesday, i would actually love an update about what we are doing to help the west Side Community Mental Health center. And also are they at full capacity now. And if they are not at full capacity now, why not and what kind of supports are we going to be giving them. Then also since were meeting back again next wednesday, i have brought up the issue of our black infant mortality rate, something thats been haunting me for the last four years in office. And will continue to haunt me probably for the rest of my life. So i would like actually to know are there any resources put toward thissest. When i heard that much of the resources is philanthropy, it is absolutely appalling and unacceptable. I think Public Health is such a large budget. I would just like to know that we are starting a real effort okay. Just to be frank. Our africanamerican population is so small in San Francisco. The fact that our black infant mortality rate 9. 1 deaths per 1,000 compared to 2. 9 deaths of white children. This is quite frankly this is a nut that we can crack. This is something that we can solve. We cant solve it until we actually have a plan and a commitment. And that means not philanthropy dollars, of people giving out of the goodness of their heart. This is about a general fund. Because quite frankly the wages of san franciscans i think the department is funded by the taxes and wages of workers of San Francisco. And i think actually that the workers of San Francisco would like us to crack the nut. And so i would love for you to bring back to me next wednesday when we have a very short conversation about a plan or some resources that are put forwarforwardtoward it. Having said that, i just want to say i really want to commend supervisor ronen and supervisor mandelman for being the leads on the Mental Health s. F. Issue here and the mayor, too. I think this is what we can accomplish when were all working together, putting our city dollars to solve a problem thats affecting all san franciscans today. It is immoral that we would have this type of Mental Illness on the streets untreated. And actually i think that it is what is it is a concern in every neighborhood in San Francisco. And not just in 9 and not just in 8. So i do want to thank them. And actually its so nuance. And it is so deep that it is hard for me to wrap my mind around it. And so i lean on the guidance of these two supervisors. And i will say exactly the way in the same way that i lean on supervisor yee about Early Childhood providers and also Early Childhood education, because everyone has a little area in expertise. I do want to thank you so much. As i leave this board, it is really great knowing that youre working together on this, with the mayor also, and that we can actually, actually make some success. So i want to thank you. Now im going to check the time. It is 11 40 now. I would like to break at noon. We would like to start our Police Discussion at 12 30 until 2 00. The police chief must leave at 2 00. And so i think the quickest thing that we can do is we could start h. S. A. Right now or we could actually also take a smaller maybe a faster one, which is the port. Do you think that supervisors, have you reviewed the b. L. A. Report for h. S. A. And have any comments or questions for them . I think no. Thats great. I just want to say thank you, Public Health officials, for coming and joining us today. Well see you back next wednesday. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Chair fewer thank you. H. S. A. We have trent moore with us today. What do you say about your budget and the proposed cuts for the Human Services agency . Good morning. Good morning. Its still morning. Executive director of i am services. We are in agreement with the b. L. A. s report and accepting their recommendations. Chair fewer thank you very much, mr. Moore. Any questions or comments for mr. Moore . Seeing none. Mr. Controller, can you please take note of the committees intention to accept the b. L. A. s recommendations. Thank you very much. I think we might be able to take the port now. Representatives from the port available . San francisco port, are you available . Yes, chair fewer, this is nate cruise, finance director. And then the Deputy Director of finance and administration should also be able to join in a minute. Chair fewer thank you very much. Thank you, mr. Cruise. What do you say about the recommendations from the b. L. A. . Were in agreement with the b. L. A. s recommendations, chair. Chair fewer thank you very much. Do you have any comments or questions for the port, colleagues . Seeing none, okay. I think that we a reserve recommendation also. So the reserve recommendation this is a policy recommendation to place a port economic Recovery Project on the budget and finance committee. I just questioned mr. Cruise. I know that you do have a Recovery Project plan, is that correct . Chair fewer, at this point we have the funding set up in a project. Chair fewer okay. What we dont have is a spending plan. So we agree that the budget analysts recommendation that we can come back and provide that plan and ask for the release of those funding that funding at that point. Chair fewer thank you, mr. Cruise. So seeing no comments or questions from my colleagues, i think that we are in agreement. Mr. Controller, can you please take note, this committees intentions to set the budget recommendation and recommendation number 6 from the b. L. A. For this department. Thank you very much. Next we have is the airport. Do we have joining us today . Mr. Sataro or kathy widener, our friend that we see all the time. Anyone from the airport here . Yes, chair fewer. Hi. Chair fewer hi. I can tell you that were in agreement with the budget Analysts Recommendations and ivan will be jumping on in one minute. Chair fewer okay. We are in agreement with the budget Analysts Recommendations. Chair fewer okay. Thats great. I have one question, though. And this is about your airport staffing for San Francisco Police Officers. As you know, were been having a robust conversation on how we can actually get more Police Officers on the streets of San Francisco, without actually hiring more. Knowing that the airport has a whole staffing plan of Police Officers for security there at the airport. And so i think that the questions that we have for the director today is really about the need for such a robust security staff. And also for your dependence on the San Francisco Police Department to really to provide these services. As you know, weve been having discussions about academies and i realize that one of the academies part of the academies that you have budgeted for, is really for the airport. We i think i speak for some of my members on this committee, have been locking at the Airport Police budget for some time now. And wondering why there is such a robust budget of Police Officers and not only that, considering that the airport is going to be operating at a much, much lower capacity. And also the arrest records and Everything Else dont really show that actually thats needed at that level. So i actually am going to have a hard time approving your budget at the committee and this is why. Because i would like really an analysis of your need to have such a Robust Police force there. And command staff when in the past there hasnt been such. And actually the rest, the activities dont really justify it. And in when your airport is actually going to be at what, 30 capacity, why would you . Like would you and why would you have another academy . And also knowing that i have brought up the suggestion and president yee has also brought this up, about maybe the use of deputy sheriffs. We know county jail number 4 is closing, well have 70 deputy sheriffs. They are Law Enforcement officers in the state of california, having passed having all the Actual Authority of any peace officer in california. And so im just questioning sort of the level. I see the director has met has joined us. Im hoping that you have heard my questions. So i think what i would like to hear is sort of a justification of why you would need a whole command staff at the San Francisco airport and such a robust Police Department out there. When your airport is at much, much, much less capacity. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, chair fewer. I appreciate it. Good to see you all, president yee, members of the board. Good to be with you this morning. Let me supervisor say that, yeah, we have depleted passenger loads now. Thats certainly not going to last. Ill tell you. You know, we still have different recovery scenarios. And under all scenarios, we do get back to 58 million passengers on the outside in the next two to three years. So, yes, now its depressed. And i understand your point about that and the need for the number of officers we have. But were going to return and were going to continue to grow because of the assets at s. F. O. For air travel to the bay area, to the world. What we did three years ago, ill tell you when i started in this job, ill give you a little context. I wont take too much time. My number one priority is around the safety of our passengers and, of course, the safety of our employees. And so i was concerned about the target that airports have been in the past, the terrorist threat. And youve seen it at l. A. And youve seen it in florida, with active shooter incidents. And ill tell you when i walked around the airport after taking on the role of director, i was very concerned about a visible presence. And the most important thing you can do for a security of an airport is to have a visible presence. Everything we do is around the safety and security of our passengers and employees. And so we do an incredible amount of investment in hard hardening of facilities, a lot of studies and vulnerabilities. I felt like what we needed to do in this environment that were living in now, is have a stronger visible presence. Because to be honest when i walked around the facility, i did not see the officers, because theres so much acreage to cover and they have so many different roles here. And so what i did was ask the team to go back and rebaseline and acknowledge that this is prior to the crisis. But we baseline what the security needs of the airport are. And really be thoughtful about it and the priority being safety and security, which is our highest core value at the airport. So we developed a model that said this is the staffing needs for the airport. And it came to the conclusion that we needed to ramp up and didnt have enough officers at the airport. And so we had a set a path with budgets over three years to get to a much higher level of officers at s. F. O. I am certainly not judging the value of the officers at s. F. O. , the city of San Francisco. Because i totally understand and ive been following the conversation around the priorities that the city is looking at. And focusing the police in the areas that were looking at now. But airports are a target for terrorist threats, active shooters. On a global world, this is what weve seen happen over the past several years. My interests are in protecting this airport, protecting the passengers, and that is how we proceeded with adopting the model that we developed. So we havent met those milestones of ramping up of the police force at s. F. O. But we still are convinced that were heading in the right direction to have the right security of our airport. Chair fewer im sorry. We have a difference of opinion. I actually think that having a whole command staff there is not necessary. I also think that it is not necessary for them to be San Francisco Police Officers. I think that deputy sheriffs could actually do the same job and give you some cost savings. And im sorry that we that also that the airport chooses to have Police Officers that are not just out of the academy, but actually are tenured. These Police Officers actually should be on the streets of San Francisco. We are going to have, you know, we are looking at a 1. 7 billion deficit in our budget this year. And when i see that the chief has in his proposal, in his budget like four academies, i just think that it is really uncalled for that we would have such a robust force at the San Francisco airport. I dont think that visitors that come know the difference between a San Francisco sheriff and a San Francisco Police Officer. I think that the presence, you can have the presence of a Law Enforcement officer with all the gear on them, which quite frankly everyone universally recognizes a star, a gun, a badge, all the stuff on their belt. I think that if you wanted to keep them safe. Also the Sheriffs Department has a s. W. A. T team and the Sheriffs Department has a dog unit. And so they could actually patrol your airport. So i wanted to know, are you having discussions in this direction . Are you absolutely outright just rejecting the proposal or the suggestion . You know, i think i dont well, first of all, i think that i dont know that the savings are there for this. I cant imagine that for equal work, that theres not going to be the argument that they should have equal pay. Chair fewer okay. Im imagining yeah. Go ahead, sorry. Chair fewer your disagreement with me is that you dont think that theres that much of a cost savings, is that correct . I dont think the savings over time will be to the extent thats indicated, because i think over as the equality of the work, theres going to be potentially the demand for equal pay, thats been paid to the officers that are out there now. So i think theres a case to be made that potentially the Sheriffs Department will want to upgrade their staff to have equal pay at the airport, as to whats being paid now. Chair fewer so thats what youre thinking might happen . And so youre basing this budget on that thought, is that correct . No. Not just that thought. I think other things. You know, were just we have a workforce now that is clearly engaged with the airports operation. It has a very robust understanding of the operation. Deals with travelers from all over the world. The reason we have that requirement around experienced officers is because of the need to deal with an International Travel base. And have a maturity to the work they do. And so i think what we have now very well fits with what our needs are, because of the nuances of being an international airport. I think theres a number of things that, you know, that we as far as the command staff go, we dont specify how the command staff is structured at s. F. O. We leave that certainly up to the Police Department to decide that. And so, you know, my priorities are around area coverages. And weve been continuing to grow s. F. O. And add facilities. And so thats also a reason why youve seen the counts go up, is because we have a hotel, we have an expanded terminal one, we have an extended air train. We have another parking garage. So the needs continue to expand. And i think, you know, we know we have an operation that is focused on the safety and security of the passengers. We know that a transition to a different, although likely equally qualified Law Enforcement force, is just going to be incredibly challenging. Chair fewer so you dont require or ask the Police Department to put a command staff there. If the Police Department was to say, im going to pull the command staff from there, youre fine with that . You know, i leave that up to the judgment of the leadership of the police to decide what is the right command staff to manage the officers that are present. Chair fewer sure. Well be speaking to him at 12 30. But i see that your airport budget for the the Police Airport budget for 20202021 is 80 million, is that correct . The change from 2019 to 2020. And then it goes up again in 20212022. So what . You just keep increasing . I mean, we know this is also not based on wage increases, because theyre willing to defer their wage increases for how many years. So this is actual bodies out there. What is your plan . What is your cap for that . Is it your plan to actually have like double your police force out there . What is the actual plan for the airport around security . And do you intend to just increase keep increasing the Police Presence at the San Francisco airport . You know, that was our plan prior to the crisis, as we do as i have spoke about, was we had baselined the needs of the airport, based on all of the redevelopment and everything weve done. And in the light of, the new environment around security at airports and some of the recent occurrences at other airports around active shooter incidents. Certainly we need to balance that now with the covid crisis and how impactful its been to everyones budget and revenues. And so we have i dont believe we are asking for any more positions in our revised budget. Do i have kathy, are you able to talk to that . Or is kevin on the line . Hello, kevin chief Financial Officer for the airport. We dont have more positions in the budget. We are again just basing our budget on the academy. Right now we have in the academy thats going right now, we have 17 officers that are training. And in addition to the 17, theyve agreed with the police chief to hold off on having more officers come down to the point that you just made, because of our decreased traffic level. To date, right now we are short 28 officers. Chair fewer how many officers do you have there . I dont have that number right now. But ill get it to you. Chair fewer okay. So i see supervisor walton in the queue. Supervisor walton. Commissioner walton thank you very much, chair fewer. Welcome director sataro. Just one thing i do note most airports and definitely applies to s. F. O. , have several different numbers of Law Enforcement agencies at the airport. U. S. Customs, border protection, t. S. A. , department of homeland security, fbi, department of agriculture, bureau of tobacco, firearms and explosives. How many different Law Enforcement agencies do we have at s. F. O. . On any given day . Yeah. Youve put together a pretty good list there, supervisor. The publicfacing municipal policing is all done by sfpd. We do have San Mateo County sheriffs, i believe we have two assigned San Mateo County sheriffs. And then you go into your customs and border protection. They are their role is confined to the arrivals process and the departures process for international traffic. And then, of course, we have a t. S. A. We also have our federal air marshals. So there is a variety of Law Enforcement operations like you described, all with their very kind of discreet area of Law Enforcement for the airport. Supervisor walton like between 15 to 20 . What would you say from a numbers standpoint . No. Its seven different agencies. I think seven or eight. Yeah. Supervisor walton and the reason why i ask that, i think you were there, i was arrested during the peaceful protest months ago, prior to covid19. And it was interesting because as i was arrested by some very decent Police Officers, along with about 20 plus or so, each of us had our own officer escorted down where we sat at a table, maybe about 10, 11 officers were also writing citations. And i was looking around and my officer didnt know who i was. He didnt know that i was a member of the board of supervisors. Or at least he didnt lead on to that. And i started noticing so many different officers standing around watching the process. And i asked the officer, i said if all of the officers are down here, then, you know, ho who is watching over the airport. The officer told me he said, oh, dont worry. We have so many different Law Enforcement agencies here that work at the airport. We are well protected. We are safe and we are okay. And that was anecdotal, of course, in a conversation that i had with one officer. But it did put off a light bulb in my head just in times of the number of Police Officers that we have at the airport, versus what we would need in the community, of course, doing Real Community policing. And so that was something that was always peculiar to me, because there are so many different Law Enforcement agencies. That officer felt that the airport was very safe. Chair fewer so i see that you have accepted of course, it is up to every individual member to vote on your budget. So im just going to move this along. Seeing that this is about the b. L. A. s recommendations and im hearing that the airport is accepting the b. L. A. Recommendations, is that correct, director . Yes. Chair fewer so i so mr. Controller, please take note of this committees intentions to accept the b. L. A. Recommendations, budget recommendations for this department. Thank you very much for joining us today. Colleagues, so we will now good job. It is almost noon. We will recess until 12 30, when we will be joined by the chief of police from 12 30 and he must have a hard stop at 2 00. See you all. And mr. Clerk, do we then sign in to session number 2 when we sign back in at 12 30 . Clerk that is correct,. Supervisor mar . The reason i want to start here, its pillars for reform. These five pillars you see redefining the role of local Public Safety, life and the importance of really highlighting the sanctity of life and Community Policing those what our reform are built upon. These are the pillars that our reform is built upon. In their discussion about these pillars complimented our city and our Police Department on the work that is being done here. I think thats something we can be pleased with. There remains to be done in terms of completion of his work. I want to ask this, this work is never complete. We are trying to set ourselves up for that process to be ongoing and never stop these are our stops to progress and sustainability. Which closely mirror what lot of us in the u. S. Conference of mayors report. Theres been lot of studying about this work of reform as you all know. Over half of my professional life has been in reform mode. Some of these things that you see here before you that we are have implemented, they will get us to where we need to go. Whats often missing is after all the lights go away and everybody loses interest, often times many departments and cities lose interest. We cant afford to do that in San Francisco. Thats why we are pushing so hard getting the budgetary support. I want to point pout, reiterate, part of yesterdays discussion. When you had asked about 25 , we add those 13 we told you about yesterday, we expect to be in compliance next couple of weeks. On the lot of side of the graph, 147 are in progress. Thats work thats being done. Thats real ground level work thats being done. I dont want that to get lost in this conversation. If were measured, we know we are measured by what we complete. As i said, completion doesnt mean completion. Every one of those 69 recommendations that are complete, theres a component in our compliance standard to say what have you done to keep the work going. Continuous improving loop in many cases to make sure we continue that work. This work wont end when its complete. I want to highlight that and really emphasize that to this committee. This work will not stop. Outcomes of reform. You saw this slide last friday. I want to reiterate. That top graph on the slide to your left as you face the screen, shows the reduction in uses of force. As you see, its the largest decrease of all the different demographics and that represents approximate 60 decrease around 2016 when this work first started to now. I think that is a significant outcome by no means are we done. We want to see that continue. I want to highlight what success looks like by way of reform. By the way, when you read about reform with other cities, i talked about minute ago keeping that work going, many cities after the lights turned off and everybody satisfied with completion, that number reverse. Most reform projects deadly dealdealt with use of force. Lot of citie city want to see fs taken off reform. We are building the infrastructure and the operational structure where we dont have that. We want to reduce use of force in particular with the africanamerican population. Officerinvolved shooting, were at a low. You have 20 years of statistics in front of you. Were as low as weve been in 20 years. We havent had a fatal if over two years. We want to keep that momentum going. With the two that we have had that are on duty, we will learn our lessons and we will take this into consideration what we need to do to get better. But the fact of the matter is, weve more than cut officerinvolved shootings in half in the last four years. That is a significant accomplishment that highlight the outcome of what reform really means. S this illustrates use of force, trajectory which is downward since the First Quarter of 2016. We are fortunate in the city that we have leadership from the board of supervisors at the time to force us to collect the data to allow us to be able to determine how were doing on this. Were in a good place. Were far ahead of where many cities are. Data, collection of data, how we interpret the data is what reform is all about. Weve had a steadily declining trajectory on use of force from 2016 to now. Another great outcome with reform. I know we talked about crises intervention, Mental Health and the like yesterday. I want to highlight couple of things here. This graph shows number of Mental Health related for the First Six Months of the year. 25,770. Ther25,770. With our crises inten team response, we now have over half of our department trained on the 40 hour block of training and crises intervention technique, we have almost 100 , 98 of department on the hands on practical crises intervention training that almost all our patrol officers about 98 of the department is trained on. That makes a difference. It makes a difference in the Time Investment that are necessary to create time in distance to try to deescalate situation where we dont have to have bad outcomes. From 2019, i want to highlight couple of things, we had 742,000 calls to service. There were 58,840 of these Mental Health calls. Of those there were only 65 calls that resulted use of force. Which is less than 1 . Its. 01 . I can cite where we have been very successful in resolving situations. This is a part of the work that we want to keep going. We talked about staffing. We know the funding of the academy is an issue. We. Understand the board desire to reduce that for the sake of efficiency. We understand the economic positions that the city is facing. We are definitely painfully, we doesnt. What we try to maintain and push for not getting smaller. Not shrinking the size of the department. The purple line shows if we totally cut all of the academies. The purple line, if goes down to 1589 by 2023. Thats projected if we cut all academies. We understand the board has to make a decision. What we like you to consider is at least keeping at least one Academy Class going. That gives us the opportunity to stay close to where we are now. We have a lot of work to be done. Theres a lot of things that can be better attended to. That only comes with adequate staffing. Well do everything we can with what we have at the end of the day. We know that, we are committed to that. Were going to be professional about it. Well take these decisions like professionals. Its our role and my role as chief of police to point out what we think is the consequences will be. One of the consequences we will have a much Smaller Police force, thats already smaller than it should be. We want to reemphasize that for the board consideration. You saw this one last friday. This represents call to service. The important thing is here that number when you look at the color slide on the left, that number in the right corner, that graph, 300,822. Which is the amount of calls to service for 12month period. That was from summer of 18 and summer of 19. This was part of our staffing analysis by the consultant. The right shows our response to priority a and priority b priority c calls. Were not doing bad on priority a calls with response times. We are not doing so good on priority c calls. Thats a direct factor of staffing. As we look for ways to get better and ways to reenvision policing. We ask that consideration to be made in terms of what the transition should look like. Thats what our staffing is in. We know this is a transition year. 207 officers short, field operations, another consideration for staffing and the reason that we are asking for consideration for that one Academy Class to stay on the budget. Violence, another good outcome. Violent crimes. You can see where homicides. This is gun related violence and homicide. Homicides with firearm, year to date homicides. Supervisor walton we talked about this yesterday. I want to put the visual up there where we are. This is year to date, 20152020. Where we are on both shooting victims and homicide. Last year we had the lowest number of homicides since the early 1960s. Thats an accomplishment. We can all share in and being pleased with. Although, work is not done. Were having a rough year this year. Were above where we are this time last year. We hope to turn that around. That is going to take work and investments in the Community Policing and other things. This is a community its not just the Police Department issue. Appreciate and respect your point. I agree with your point supervisor walton this goes beyond police. Part of what we have to do is at least do our job. So we can respond, prevent and investigate crimes. We have had some success in doing that. Not just with us but no conjunction with communitybased organizations which is part of of what Community Policing is all about. Going back to the staffing, all experts and Police Staffing has told us if you have to have time to engage with community, patrol officers have to have time to engage with community. If all youre doing is going from call to call, meeting people at their worse moment from crises to crises, that is not Community Policing. That doesnt promote Community Policing, that undermines Community Policing. You dont have time to engage people that have those meaningful conversations outside of a crises or custodial situation. Experts after expert told us that. Those of us that have been in this business as long as we have, we understand this to be true. I want really to reemphasize that for you all to take that into consideration when youre making your staffing and academy decisions. We really want to keep this work going. We understand the budget. We understand we have to take some pain and sacrifice of cuts. We accept that. But the Core Functions what will make us better, lets do what we can and keep the momentum going. Property crime and Violent Crimes going down. We know coifed i covid is pat of the reason were having with property crime. I know covid, we get it. We were already going down prior to covid. Lets not lose that momentum. That is it. Thank you. My apology joining you late. President yee. I want to clear when i ask the question last week around civilization. You said that if you had the funding, you can hire positions. Youre ready to that. In the past you might say youre right, then theres issues how do you find those positions and what qualifications and then you have to go look for people or recruit people. Do you have Job Descriptions for 4030 positions . Yes, we do. We have the job population. Ewitwe had 45 civilization posis cut. Some of the job populations had to be created. We are ready. There were some issues. We made some progress on that. Were in the process on some of these when we had to freeze the candidates that some we were planning to offer positions of employment. We had internal candidates that wanted to go to some of these positions that were very viable candidates. We had to freeze all of that. Supervisor yee thats good to hear. You can imagine from my point of view, that first field 10 or 20 took a real long time. Theres a lot of discussion about creating the Job Description for those civilization position. I will be glad to hear that. Its going to feed into what i will ill be suggesting for my colleagues to think about. I know we talked about quite a few issues. We talked about overtime quite a bit. Thinking about it since the last discussions, the two meetings we had recently, this is where i will just make a statement and say im comfortable with. Before asking the chief and the Police Department to get rid of those bad cops its really important to bring in younger people that you dont have that lag of not having young Police Officers that trained to work in the city. You will end up with real old excuse me, anybody thats over 40. Not real old but older Police Officers that are not trained that way. The reform becomes more difficult because then you constantly have to remind them that the culture of the Police Department now has changed. Versus bringing in new people all the time and hopefully you would think that the younger newer people would embrace the type of things that we value. I want to throw that out there. Regardless of how many we have. Thats one of my thinking that is important. Im comfortable cutting 50 of the budget. Im comfortable with that. What i like to say, if theres some cost savings with overtime that we can use some of that funding to actually pay for those civilianization positions. I asked those questions earlier because i didnt want to hear excuses. That was important for me to know. I wasnt too sure what the cost will be. Hopefully youll cost it out. That is where im comfortable with. Were going to have a discussion. Im not suggesting that i represent anybody else here. Its where i am. Thank you. Supervisor walton thank you for the presentation, chief. I do want to echo chair fewers statements when she talks about everyone on this Committee Takes this work very seriously. Having to balance out Public Safety and making sure we do the right thing with the budget and also making sure that we dont have folks on our street that want to harm people of color. Its not an easy job for any of us. I know you talked about, you showed us a pie chart for 147 reforms that are in progress. Whats the timeline for completing those . What mechanisms or what strategies are in place to guarantee and ensure they will be met by that timeline . Thank you for that question. We have an active Strategic Plan specifically for those reforms. We anticipate that about 100 of them will be done within the next by string of 2021. 110 will be done by spring of 2021. Beyond that, there are some more difficult ones that are going to take some budgetary support. Technology is a big part of reform. We understand the budget conditions. We havent been able to get budgetary needs to address the technology concerns. How we do it, the internal processes every week we have collaborative reform meeting with the Team Including the command staff, the entire command staff. We call executive sponsors. These are the commanders that lead each reform category. They have a team of people throughout the department that they work. Lot of this work is documenting the work that were doing. Documenting in a way, they can see exactly what reform role looks like in the San Francisco Police Department. We have packets that we send to them and they Read Everything that were doing, that includes policies, procedures and steps we put in place and audit tests that need to be done. All of that is sent to the evaluator. Those things get evaluated. Thats how they determine whether or not we are in compliant. Those meetings are ongoing. We hired a lady from dhr to speed up the process. For those policy, those orders that required by law, they impact the working conditions. We have hired her she now works for the Police Department. That is in the first couple of pages pays tremendous dividends. Weve gotten several confirmed just in the first few months. Theyre ready to go to the Police Commission. That took a year for us to do that. You can talk about why things take as long as they do. Thats part of the reason. We had personnel decisions that we have to get approval for and things like that. Not an excuse but trying to explain the process. Another thing were working on, this impacts some of our discussion yesterday, 2017, the board approved a budget that included funding to put out a contract to help us get a better handle and strategy on addressing homicide and shootings. That accurate contract was awarded to the California Department of community. Then working on strategies to address these homicides while at the same time, not going back to the way the old where we addressed everything by arresting as many people as we could. Its a thoughtful process. We already engaged in that process. Weve seen some good modeling from other cities around the bay area that theyve worked with. We have an m. O. U. With them. We have a Police Commission presentation on where we are in the next couple of weeks. Whole idea is something that you said yesterday, it takes more than policing. We have to get the community involved. We have to get elected officials. This work will move us in a better direction. We had some success. We think we can do better in terms of homicide. Thats the direct piece of reform. It took us 2. 5 years to get through all the r. F. P. Process to get to where we are now. These are the things that we are doing. In terms of management, were not going to offer excuses, we need to get the work done. We need to get it done. We need to be transparent. This we are and we will be in terms of showing the public what were doing and what reform means. We can say we completed 200, what does that mean to the people of our city . Are we using less force, are we holding officer accountable . Is the department being held accountable. Those things have to have thats a big part of reform. Question is how do we respond and do we have the structure in place to correct those things immediately and many cases detect them before they become bigger problems. Thats whats in the works. I only been here for 3. 5 to 4 years now, if you talk to people who have been here, they see the difference. They understand the difference. Things are changing for the better. Not that we were terrible, because we werent. We need improvement. Supervisor walton i heard good things about heinz. They are also in the business of making money because things are bad in certain areas. They put themselves out of business once we get those 272 recommendations taken care of. Thats just a statement that i want to be on record. What metric are you bastin basie 54 is positive. Wh one thing is the outcome. Other thing is the foundational work that is happening. For instance, on september 16th, we have a Community Policing general order that hasnt been revised in about 20 years. It goes before the commission. The process of that general order. This is one of the recommendations from past week. The process for what went into that general order was a year in the making. We had to construct Community Work groups that gave input into how they would like to see policy change. That took a year. There were surveys that went out to hundreds of people. We ha had community input. It was a lot of work that went into this. The end result is the policy that will go before the commission in couple of weeks that took two years to get to. Thats what progress means. I can highlight that on our diversity Strategic Plan is another one. The plan is already written. When we have the hearing that supervisor safai called, we talked about all the things were doing to increasing diversity in the workforce. That diversity Strategic Plan is one of those in progress pieces of work that was year in the making. That is kind of what in progress work looks like. The 5. 17 general order, tremendous amount of community. We put together bias work group couple of years ago. Community members, lawyers, commissioners, Police Department and employees. Lot of discussion, lot of meetings. I sat in on them myself. Lot of debate with hiller heinz and california d. O. J. On what this policy needs to look like. Its in effect now. They highlighted some of whats in that policy. Explaining what bias is how we tell our officers you cant react to somebody eels biases. Elsebias. We get calls of somebody elses bias. We can make that situation worse or we can make it right by how we act. First part is recognizing what it is. We now have that in our policy. Officers are told to slow down, determine what you have and react to the fact, not somebody elses bias. As far as i know, were only Police Department in the country that has that in writing in our policy. Thats the result of all the work that im talking about that we can be proud of. That story can be treated in repeated in 147 use of force. We knew that was really the thing we wanted to correct first. Not using first, reducing officersolved shooting. Theres still work to be done there too. We still have 20 or so remaining to do. Things like the townhall, were finding that process, were transparent if we do have an officerinvolved shooting. I must say, there are other departments that have taken our process, some of them put it on video, some of them put in how they address townhalls and most departments dont have a townhall after every officerinvolved shooting. We have been consistent. On release of video. We were among the first that consistently released videos of officerinvolved shooting. Thats something that is a result of work in progress and work thats completed. I know its a long answer. Its important that we highlight these things for you and the public and the committee. Those 140 in progress, theres work thats being done thats real and tangible that equates to real results. We go back to the use of force decline in particular among people of color. Thats really important outcome for us. Supervisor walton my last question, supervisor fewer touched on this yesterday. She talked about different scheduling options and ways to avoid all the overtime or the necessity of overtime. I dont know if we got a response from you on any of those suggestions or your thoughts about that . You didnt get a response. Chair fewer closed the meeting. Were looking and continue to look at it. I know chair fewer wants to hear more than were looking at. The scheduling options between the [indiscernible]. Scheduling options between 10 hour shift and 8 hour shift. There is research. I dont know if any of the Committee Members seen the research. There was one report about eight years ago completed. Its really probably one of the exhaustive report on police scheduling thats out there. What that report tells us, that 10hour shift thats the probably the most shift in terms of policing. Its about alertness on the job. Its about wellness of officers and the other things that thats in other areas of policing. If an officer dont stay healthy and theyre calling in sick and getting high blood pressure, that matters. Goinits going to come back to t us. This is not my study. Its a really good study to look at in terms of scheduling. We have looked at different modeling and other things that we will like modify in the near future. Other thing to consider now is covid. It cause us to try to keep people apart as much as we can keep them apart. Not have a large group of officers gathering in police stationings. Those things are taken into consideration. We are also giving where we headed with the overtime issue. Theres definitive research out there that overtime usually led to increases with the eighthour shift. You might get some tradeoffs as far as coverage. In some respects, you lose by way of overtime. I dont know why that is. All of the things to be considered and with that said, we understand what supervisor fewer is saying. We are having that discussion right now. Were modifying base the on covid, were having to motte if i modify some of our scheduling to keep people healthy. We had a spike in the department over the last two weeks. We went three months of covid with only five or six positive cases. We now have over 40 in the last two months. Thats alarming and concerning. Some of that we try to mitigate with scheduling. Chair fewer i wanted to actually shed some light on a conversation we had yesterday that supervisor walton is referring to. Its not going to an eight hour shift. It is about reconfiguring your 10hour shift for their off schedule that other city have done. I know the 10 hour shift is very popular, especially about commute. I get that. There are cities that are adopting more modern schedules using the plan. Thats what im saying. Im not saying eight hour shift. I want to clarify that. I do think that we want to cut down on the commute time and Everything Else for Police Officers. There are modifications within the 410 that you can be doing. Thats the clarification that i want to make. Thank you supervisor fe fewe. Chair fewer anywhere questions . Supervisor ronen. Supervisor ronen my question is to b. L. A. I want to hear the answer looking at the unit, the horse unit, the s. R. O. Unit were the three i believe that i asked for yesterday. As this is nick menard. I will attempt to share my screen. Are you able to see this spreadsheet . Supervisor ronen no. Here are the units that you asked about to book these for the units are staffing. I look at the staffing cost to give you every Police Officer will incur some overtime costs. Try to incorporate that as much as possible. These Staff Members are all as of june 20. There maybe slight differences between then and now. The staffing changes are in march or september. There should be they are quite accurate. You can see the staffing here and the job. Total number of people is 33. Thats an annual salary and benefits cost of 6. 3 million. Using the average overtime for officer and sergeant, you expect to see about 270,000 of overtime. Related to that, i also wanted to include the Homeless Outreach team that the police have at each of the stations. Supervisor ronen thank you for that. You can see here the 27 officers al assigned to function across the city. Thats average cost of 4. 9 billio4. 9billion dollars. Did you ask about the dirt bike unit . You asked about Public Housing. There were in june 45 sworn officers assigned to that function. Thats a total count of 8. 2 million and approximately 370,000 overtime. School resource officers, 11 Police Officers at 1. 9 million. When you include 90s of expected overtime. Its important to break out the positions here. There are nine sworn officers. I only included overtime for those people. Overall staffing cost is about 2. 4 million. This includes also the cost of hay and other vest vestibules and horse diet. Those each about 30 billion a year. Supervisor ronen can you send that to us . Yes. I will send it now. Supervisor ronen i guess im wondering setting up for new crises team. Well be adding to more, hopefully, in march of next year, why would we still need the full team and the full Homeless Outreach team . Supervisor, i want to start by saying again, we are supportive of that transition to the ems6. Probably the unknowns now are you referenced 20,000 calls that will possibly go to ems6. If were talking about replacing the work that 23 officers, 24 officers and at time its been hire than that, plus the officers assigned to the homeless details in the station that respond to these calls. Youre talking about upwards 60 officers. They still cant handle the volume of those calls. The belief that six units will handle that volume of calls i think its going to be a real challenge for the ity. Which means that also, we have to transition to get there. I think we all in agreement there has to be a transition. Couple of things that i want to point out that we have right now, i totally understand the desire to get police away from those type of calls. However, the officers that are handling those calls now are the best trained in the department. They train with d. P. H. They train wall the laws and rules that go along with dealing with the people and the psychiatric youre getting the best that this department has to offer in terms of how we deal with those calls. Very few uses force. Very few incidents to go sideways. Thats important to know. Even as we transition, just think about the math for a second. Youre talking about 16 handling volume of calls that 50 or 60 officers have trouble halling handling. [please stand by]. We cut for year one half of the hsac team and half of the Homeless Team that would give that period of transition time which i think would equal 5,000,058 thousand 578 and the0 78 million and then to put th the and thats year one. Thats year one and in year two, my proposal is that we cut an additional 25 of both of them as were transferring over time police out of homelessness. And then for the Public Housing and fro officers to put not do any changes this year but for the second year to put the 8. 2 million for Public Housing and the 1. 9 million in sro for reserves so we can continue to have that conversation as changes are happening in those ways. Chair so i think that if we were to say to cut half of the hsoc team that would allow the Police Department to put half of their time that is normally at asoc at normal patrols at the station and the same thing with Homeless Outreach and the same thing with the mounted. Do you see what im saying . Unless youre asking this committee to approve layoffs of Police Officers of those units. Im saying that i want to reduce the Police Budget by that amount under that justification and then the chief will decide how to deal with the difference. , if that makes sense. I know we dont get to choose how to we get to cut money from their budget and the chief gets to decide how to deal with his budget based on those cuts. Thats the extent of our power and so what im saying is i believe that we need to start weaning the city after th off tf police to dia deal with the unhd population and to be spending money on unhoused unit doesnt make any sense. The only way to impact that is by cutting the budget by an equivalent amount. The chief, then, gets to decide whether he agrees with me or not, but he has to deal with that reduction in his budget. And i dont thats the extent of our power. We dont have power above and beyond that. Chair theres been some suggestions, also, about cutting the overall budget about so i think what i want to know is, what is the dollars amount for year one to cut from the budget and the dollar amount for year two . The dollars amounts may equal from overtime or the academy. What im saying is i want to do it above and beyond those cut. Chair do you have the amount that we where we would take that from . Cant we just take it from the Police Budget . Well, it would cut, then, into salaries because it would mean layoffs. Yes. Chair so youre proposing layoff, actually, of the police force . Im proposing that we should no longer have Police Involved in dealing wi dealing with the d playing, unless, of course, theres crime. Chair i just wanted to bring up we saw charts if we were to lay off Police Officers, we would have a Police Department becaus we woula police force that is twothirds white. indiscernible . Chair if we look at layoffs, we are getting the most diversity i mean, most recently hired and when we look at our police force by the numbers and when were hired, if we were to lay off Police Officers, we would have a much, much less racially diverse police force and therefore, much, much less language capability, also. I just want to mention that. I know. We are in a catch 22, right . If our power was absolute, we would do this in a surgical way, where we would get rid of the bad cops and keep the cops of color and speak various languages and do it based on picking and choosing the best out there, right, and the most work with community in a positive way that doesnt cause division. I dont have that power. And yet, i think its deeply wrong and i am answering the call of this time to reduce the size of the police force to start dismantling a system that has failed us over time and start envisioning over time. Our power is very limited. So what im proposing is that we do something substantial so thas responsible as i know we all are about this as possible because this is major, what im proposing and i have no illusions about that. But i think we have to do something significant that we can then feel the pressure collectively as a city and urgency to reenvision and reform, right . Chair do you have a dollar amount for this . I do. So in year one, i would propose that we cut 6,705,000. 551, which is the amount where im getting that number, just because its not random, it ends up being kind of random how it works out but not random in my head. In my head, its taking half of the officers that are assigned to hsoc and half assigned to the Homeless Outreach team in year one. As a significant reduction to the amount of police that are responding to and dealing with the unhoused population. So that we can over time ease police out of that responsibility. And then what i would do in year two, and i might need some help from the controller and the budget legislative analyst because math is not my top skill in life, is that in year two, i would like to reduce by an additional 25 those two line items. Im wondering if nick nick, are you there and can you help me out here . Hi, im here. So nick, can you just put i figured out how to take half of each of those numbers in the first year and can you help me with slightly more advanced math and take an additional if we were to take an additional 25 so it would be 75 of the numbers in the second year. Yeah. So youre talking about hsoc, housing. Yes, so im talking about no, im talking about asco, hot team ancoc andmounted horses. Asoc, hot team and mounted horses. Ok, ill get back to you in a minute. While nick is working that, can i ask a question just to be clear . So with the proposed cuts, what youre proposing is that we cut personnel and that you leave it up to the department, the chief, to cut personnel equivalent to whatever that math equates to . Am i clear on that . Yes. Ok, so my question and im not clear on exactly what this answer is but for the 20,000 or so calls that are being dispatched to the Police Department, who is going to handle those calls and who will they be dispatched to . In addition to that, because i know Mental Illness and our response to Mental Illness is another part of where this is hopefully will lead to one day, theres another 50,000 calls for service dealing with people in Mental Healthrelated calls. Who are going to respond to those, as well . Because many of those overlap with the asoc calls. So my question is who will respond to that . Will that be taken away from the Police Departments workload and if so, how . Yes. So, those calls will be answered by the rest of the asoc team which is made up of people who the hot team, who are nonpolice, who work in dealing with the unhoused population. Hsh, dpw and the rest of the asoc team. And then in addition, the additional ems that are coming online. So i just want to make you and the committee aware, theres not enough personnel in the hot team right now to handle the capacity they have first and foremost. Second, none of those entities besides the Fire Department is a 24hour operation and many of them, not even a sevendayaweek operation and that would have to change immediately. And also, that would require it would have to change by so when does the so half of the fiscal year is over in january and it would have to change by january. So all of those people would have to be hired to build a capacity to handle that volume of work by january. And heres what im saying and just for your consideration and boards consideration. I understand what youre saying. I just urge us to be very thoughtful about the transition. Look, if its ta taken off our plate and we dont have the workload, that would be great and i think thats what your desire is, but for that to happen, all of the other pieces that have to be in place, my understanding is we cant get enough hot workers as it is and even when we call them to handle some of the calls that we felt that we couldnt or shouldnt handle, the response has not been what it should be under the current circumstances. Now, were going to shift that workload to them. The question is, who actually suffers with this new arrangement . Chair chief, i am looking aat the clock and we have 15 moe minutes and this committee has to come up with a decision around a budget cut. Its been proposed that we would lay off Police Officers and an estimated cost of about 8 million worth of Police Officers, we would lay off that many Police Officers, because im just estimating here what it might be. Or maybe 9 million. Its 6. 7. Chair for the first year. This is a twoyear budget. So we are talking about maybe 9 million worth of Police Officers that we would lay off. So i just want to state that i know supervisor walton is in the queue but i want to state this, i am not in favour of laying off Police Officers but in favour of reducing the hsoc team when we have a plan but i want those officers back on the street and i dont want to have to fill these academies which are millions and millions of dollars. And this is where i would do the cuts personally. Because i actually think these workingclass men exwomeand wome feeding their families and the majority are putting food on the table and paying for their food and rent. Theyre not different from other workingclass families, except theyve chosen a profession that we are trying to change out of the scope of what we do. I dont think as individuals, we would take their livelihood away from them. I dont think i feel comfortable taking away their ability to support themselves or their families. And so i am not in favour of the layoff. What i hear from president yee is i am in favour of, though, discussing what we have on the table. And thats not to say supervisor ronen, that i am in disagreement with you. I actually think is i think the chief thinks this, too, is that police shouldnt be responding to these homeless calls. And that we should be building up the team which we just had a discussion with Public Health about. Youre absolutely right. Do we need that many people on the mounted . I dont know, but, actually, the police costs Police Officers were deployed and real the real cost are the horse feed and hay, vegetables and the vet. So that cost is somewhat minimal and i actually think if we want to reduce the police force, to maybe a number that is manageable, maybe a number that actually after we get these things in place for example, we hire up for hsoc, our Homeless Outreach and more social workers and anything else so police are not responding to calls that more skilled that the subjects can be responding to, is that if you were to lay off Police Officers, like 9 million worth of the Police Officers, it would have a huge impact on our district station. I just want to say for one, i am five officers short for how many years at my station. And regardless, i think, that if we would like police to handle other things besides i mean, take those duties away, we are still, i think, looking at we have not had a replacement in our department and so i am not in favor of that and i werent twant toand i want totake a temy are in favor to put on the table because im looking at the clock here that i have only heard from supervisor yee that he says he would cut the amount of academies, even though the bla recommends cutting one academy, there are four on the table. And he is in favour of cutting hes putting a suggestion out to cut two academies. I have said yesterday i would cut four academies. And also, he has made a suggestion of cutting 50 of the overtime budget and supervisor walton has put out yesterday that he would like to cut 75 of the overtime budget and so, if we could as a Budget Committee work within those parameters, i also would just so supervisor ronen has a proposal on the able to cut the police force. These cuts, in addition to, which would cut into layoffs of Police Officers, supervisor mandelman and i see supervisor walton and supervisor mandelman and if we could direct our conversation to these proposals on the table now, supervisor walton. Chair fewer, i have one question that would get me in line with the conversation at hand, because im curious to know, couldnt mounted officers go into open positions . Chair yes, they would go back into control and not be on the mounted but then be repumped intrepumpedrepurposed into stat. They should be used at the best of the their ability and yes, that answer was that if you were to take half of the Police Officers off the mounted, they go back to district stayings an. So what we wouldnt have, as i said before, is the money for the stable keepers, which is 200 something thousand b, i think, d those are Civil Service positions and we would be laying them off and also the hay, the vegetables and the vet. And that amount is all included in the last item, budgeted item. But we would still be paying for the salaries of the sergeant and Police Officers. So personally, i want to say, im a little reluctant because i dont want to lay off Civil Service employees, either. Theres 200,000 people employed in San Francisco. Thats my only consideration, too. And for my clarification, chair, why wouldnt those Civil Service employees be able to go to another classification . Clarification is stables in golden gate park, yeah. Ok. Chair do you have an opinion, supervisor walton, on what has been proposed so far . I definitely am in support of cutting overtime and academies. I think that you and i want t al of the academies being on the table. I would be ok with putting one on reserve, which i think is what president yee stated. Chair i think president yee said he would cut it by 50 and keep two academies and you are saying cut three academies and put one in reserve and president yee is saying keeping two academies. Is that correct, president yee . Youre on mute, president. Yes, thats correct. Chair ok. And im hearing from you are you in agreement cutting 50 of the overtime and putting 25 of that 50 on reserve . I would be in agreement in it was something that the entire committee was ok just half of overtime budget. Chair thank you very much. Supervisor mandelman. Can you talk about if youre in agreement with the other proposals, as well. Chair are you in agreement of laying off 9 million worth of Police Officers . Not at this time. Chair thank you. Because i cant guarantee who goes. Chair thank you very much. President yee, are you in agreement with supervisor ronens proposal . No, im not comfortable with that. No. Chair supervisor mandelman, youre next in the queue. I would like to speak at some point. She asked, but i didnt want to just say no and not have any clarification. I mean, the part of the no is that through attrition and through theres two things going on. One is that we want to have a transitional plan thats going to take some time to transition an amount and by reducing the number of academies, thats nota part, that there be a natural attrition that you wouldnt have to fire anybody but. Ca money buy from the academies and move Police Officers into other duties and not lose the diversity that you talked about earlier. So i wanted to give an explanation. Chair thank you, president yee. Supervisor mamdelman. Thank you, chair. And i want to thank my colleagues for the seriousness with which each of them is weighing these decisions and i know that each of us is trying to figure out the way to make San Francisco the safest and ensure that all of San Francisco is receiving the benefits of Public Safety however were able to deliver it. And i appreciate supervisor ronen calling on us to rise to this moment. I think i disagree with her conclusions about how to do that and i think, to me, part of what is happening in San Francisco is that our chief has been rising to this moment for the last three or four years. And i think that theres been rhetoric that weve heard that reform does not work. But the data shows that the reform that the chief has been implementing over these last years, as he has been hiring more officers of color and more Women Officers and as he has been implementing the department of justice recommendations, that we have actual data that shows that fewer people in San Francisco are being killed and fewer people in San Francisco of color are having bad experiences with the police, violent, potentially lethal experiences than whats happening five years ago. And so to me, thats a little bit of a response to the impossibility of reform working. And i think as we think about how to make our Police Department safer for everyone, i dont want to lose sight of whats happened these last few years. Were short by 255 officers. I believe it. I feel it in my district and my constituents wh feel it. But i also believe that there is hope that we can to things differently. And so, i am grateful for the work that the mayor has done and supervisor walton has done to redirect funs into new ways of doing business. And i believe fondly in this investment in crisis intervention teams and trying to pull that work off of the department. I dont support laying off officers. I am leery of getting rid of any academies but could go along with president yees proposal, if thats the consensus. And in terms of the overtime, i am down to putting some of it on reserve or even a large chunk of it on reserve, but an abstracted conversation about overtime that does not describe what that overtime is supposed to be paid for and where its going by taking it away is not something i would support. To supervisor ronens point in thinking about reserves, i actually think it does make sense to put some of these funds for hsoc ic and in the second yr in reserves. So continuing that conversation over the next year might make some sense. So academies, overtime, lay dozen offs and i think i covered it all. I also want to echo president yees call that if we are directing police funds away from officers, away from classes, that putting in the money into their budget and holding them accountable for civilianizing some of the positions lost should be attached to the coming year. Chair supervisor ronen. Thank you so much. I want to address a number of things and then make a new proposal since clearly this committee is not on the same page as i am on this. And so i want to say that i am a Worker Rights advocate and thats where i come from and thats what ive done with my entire life prior to becoming a supervisor and laying off a worker is not something that i would normally ever be ok with, and i have struggled with this. Perhaps more than ive struggled with any other decision ive ever made. But here is the bottom line. The bottom line is when you have change in society, its uncomfortable. It involves a little bit of time of transition, where its not exactly clear how things are going to change until we get to something better. And to me, this moment in time is about that major change and shift. And, perhaps, im trying to promote and initiate that change too quickly and i can appreciate that. Thats a judgment call on how fast you do it. And i could see doing it, you know, trying to push it back. And i can see and very much appreciate this committee being willing to cut overtime and some of the Academy Classes. I think thats major. I think thats real change and im with you that and appreciate it very, very much. But i think we have to make a budgetary statement that says weve been saying it is not the job of police to deal with the crisis of homelessness in our society for a long time. And if we dont back up those words with dollars, then i think it comes across as shallow. And that weve been doing the same thing over and over and over. This doesnt make me happy with any way, shape or form and these people with these incredible training are extremely employable. Perhaps ive overdone it with how much im expecting to cut, and perhaps we can cut a little bit less than that many officers. What im saying is its time for action and its time to say to put our money where our mouth is and to say we expect radical change in our police force, that we have a tiny bit of control over as supervisors. And so im happy, you know, i see dean has joined the committee and im happy to half my proposal and see if this committee feels more comfortable do that. If not, then i would and i would ask the committee to chime in on this. And if thats not ok, then i would ask as at least to put this money on reserve, then, this the second year so that this city feels the pressure to make major change in how we police in this city. Chair and supervisor ronen, how do you feel on the proposal of taking a Temperature Check on 50 of the overtime being cut, 25 of it on reserve and, also, president yee wanted to cut two Academy Classes and supervisor mamdelman might be convinced for supervisors proposal and supervisor walton and i think maybe we should cut four. Where are you . Im with you 100 , your original proposal. Chair we have a time constraint here. The chief must leave and as mentioned, we started this as 12 30 and well end as 2 00. This Budget Committee must come to a consensus today on it and the chief has to leave. So supervisor preston, knowing that, we are four minutes over our time limit. Is there something you would like to im sorry that i have to cut off the conversation but weve been at that an hour and a half. No, thank you, chair fewer and i will be very brief. So i simply have been listening to the discussion, appreciate all of the advocacy and hard decisions that have been promoted, totally in support of a lot of whats been floated around overtime academies and so forth. And i really wanted to hop in briefly and state my strong support for supervisor ronens comments around staffing and around just making uncomfortable and difficult decisions. And i think that the one thing i want to really add to the discussion is, i think need to break from the idea that decreasing Police Staffing and presence compromises Public Safety. I just want to challenge that notion. I think we can maintain Public Safety consistent with the kind of cuts that sou supervisor rons putting forward and i wanted to express that to the committee and thank you for your all of your work and deliberations and thank you, scott, for being so available in recent days to discuss various proposed cuts. Thank you, chair fewer. Chair thank you. So i want to say that this is my third year on the budget and, as you know, i think this is a biggest cut and president yee and i can agree that these proposals on the table are the deepest weve seen. I dont think were in disagreement with supervisor ronen about redirecting Police Services out of our Homeless Population and i dont actually think that the chief is in opposition to that, either. Having said that, what im seeing now is that there is an appetite for four Academy Classes to be cut and and appetite for two to be cut. Im propose a compromise, we cut three and keep one and i believe that the one that the bla has recommend is to cut, actually, the one in the spring. I am going to say that i think we should cut the one, actually, this fall or i mean, leave that one, but cut the other three. And i am wondering what the appetite is for that proposal. A nod would be sufficient or president yee. Thank you. Can you repeat that . Did someone Say Something. Chair go ahead. Thank you for trying to create a compromise and ill further suggest a compromise to the crow myself. Compromise, which has maybe allowing for that one and put the second one on reserve. Ok, allow one and put another Academy Class on reserve instead of eliminating it, is that right. Yes. Ok. Supervisor walton, were you trying to Say Something . I apologize, chair fewer, i didnt hear your compromise. Chair the compromise that supervisor yee is putting forth three of us had said four and two said two and im saying why dont we eliminate three, keep one Academy Class and supervisor yee is saying keep one Academy Class and put the other Academy Class on reserve. How do you feel about that compromise . I liked your version, of course. Chair ok, s supervisor mandelman, how do you feel about that . Thank you. I want to make sure that if hes left with only one that the chief gets to weigh in on which one he wants and the timing. Chair ok. Is that where the cro. The chiefh Academy Class he gets to keep . Im trying to do my one and reserve. Chair supervisor ronen, how do you feel . I could live with that. Chair we have all of the Academy Classes that we talked about Cutting Three, supervisor yourself e is saying cut two and fund one and keep one in reserve. I feel comfortable with the proposal to keep three and cut one. Chair and leave it to be the chiefs choice as supervisor mandelman has said. Are you comfortable with that, supervisor walton . Yes. Chair supervisor yee, could we persuade you to cut three Academy Classes, keep one and let the chief decide which one he would want. And the savings could civilian lives . Chair we could put one of the cost of the Academy Classes towards civilianization and you would agree, supervisor ronen, mandelman . I would rather put that in an addback fund for Community Violence prevention. Chair supervisor walton. I would rather it go back to the admit. Chair supervisor mandelman . I support president yees effort to keep one in reserve and if that one will go away, i would believe that the savings from that would go to the civilianization. Chair i actually think that i would say i would propose that if we want to be able to reduce these academies, i think i can go with supervisor yees recommendation. I know that were trying to grow this pot and im trying to everything to do that and supervisor ronen and walton, im wondering if you would come to this compromise . I am trying to find all of the money for our organizations, too, and i have met with all of them. I have met with the homeless families. Ive met with everyone. I get it. But i also think that we have pushed the Police Department to civilianized and blamed them for doing it and if we dont give them money to do it, it will never happen. So im asking if we can come to this compromise . Can i say, also, were also going to be have funding from the overtime piece, too. Chair yes, theres another pot of money, yes. Supervisor walton. Just for clarity conversation, we give them the academy. Theres remaining funds for three academies and were saying, if im not mistaken, president yee indiscernible . Chair assumsupervisor walt, youre breaking up. To clarify, i think supervisor yees proposal and im im wrong, please correct me, is that one academy and the cost of one academy would if we were to eliminate it, the other one that would be on reserve would go into civilianization and the other two academies, that funding would go back to the addback. So, in other words, if theres three academies thats going to go away, the civilianization piece, even if its two i mean, basically, it doesnt even the amount needed for civilianization, i think, is 3 to 4 million, in terms of the numbers and im just getting at this. And that is maybe able depending on which Academy Class youre talking about, it can be less than the Academy Class, actually. So theres additional funding to go back to the community pot. Chair yes. So what is on the schedule and is in the budget is for Academy Classes. We are proposing to keep one Academy Class, to cut three of them but of the three, one of the cost of one of the Academy Classes goes to the civilianization of the police force. Can we be in agreement is and then the other ones go to the addpot . Supervisor fewer . Chair yes, supervisor rone thanks. Ronen. Im really mixed. Im going to go along with this out of the spirit of compromise and moving forward and out of respect for your leadership for this process, which is virtually impossible. Youre doing an amazing job. But i have to say and the reason im going to go along with it is because were keeping one Academy Class. Because we have to shrink and region and revision i revisiont policing is in this city. But i would ask, then, that you always seriously consider my proposal. I will reduce it to 25 from 50 . Because if you civilianize those position, then youre going to free up those sworn officers who are in the civilian positions to fill in some of that need on the street that the chief has talked about. So i will go along with it, but i ask and im not conditioning it, but im asking you to seriously consider my proposal, then, to cut. Ok, you hear me . Chair we hear you. How about if we dont put it to civilianization, but we put it on reserve . Because clearly, even supervisor yee said he doesnt know the amount of how much that civilianization. Supervisor yee, would you be comfortable with that . Putting what on reserve . Chair one of the Academy Classes on reserve. And your original proposal was to fund onebecause we dont really know the full amount of money that the civi civilianizan will cost. I think that was your original proposal . It include civilianization we could have from the overtime. Chair how do people feel, excuse me, about having one theres four academies in the budget. We cut two, we keep one, we keep one on reserve and that was president yees original proposal. And how do people feel about that . But these are all interrelated. Chair the bla has recommended cutting one Academy Class. A proposal has been on the table. I said four, you said four, supervisor walton said four and supervisor yee and mandleman said to cut two. So i made a proposal to cut three and i am hearing that since supervisor yourself ee yew about cutting two, keeping one, putting one on reserve. And can we get to a point where we cut three Academy Classes . I think supervisor ronen is there, i think supervisor walton is are been walton, i think i ad would give the chief the prerogative which class he wanted to keep. I think its a smart move to do it now because we will know much more about our budget after the november ballot. After november ballot, we will know where we are and whether we can afford to put another Academy Class through. And so supervisor mamdleman and supervisor yee, i think what im asking is, would you be willing to cut three Academy Classes, allow the chief to select which Academy Class he would like to keep . Are we in agreement . I think i agree with supervisor ronen that these are interrelated and if we do find some funding, either from this or from, i dont care, you know, to fund the civilianization, then i am in agreement. Chair supervisor mandle man . Ok. Chair so i think that we have said that we will cattleya academcut threeAcademy Classes e chief which Academy Class to keep and not keep any of the Academy Class on reserve. Lets get to the overteam. Theres been a proposal from supervisor walton to cut the budget to 75 and by supervisor yourself eesupervisoryee to cute 50 in reserve and then theres a use of the overtime money for some of the overtime money to civilianize the police force. Now, supervisor walton, you have put a proposal of 75 of the 17 million to be cut from the overtime budget. Would you comfortable with supervisor yees proposal of a 50 cut and 25 of that 50 being put on reserve . Yes, yes. Thank you. Chair supervisor ronen, are you comfortable by cutting by 50 and putting 25 of that 50 in reserve . Its related to my other proposal, so i dont i mean, ill be outnumbered three, but if were going to get to concensuconsensus for all of th. Chair yours is a monetary cut in addition to these cuts and thats why i want to do these cuts first and then we talk about your cut, ok . I know, but its hard. I do get it, except that its like if im agreeing to bend on all of the the cuts that i want to do and then nobody agrees with the further cuts, then, you know what im saying . Its all from the same pot of money. Chair so i think that this is not about if you agree and ill agree with you or you agree. This is about what you yourself agree that you want to do about this particular thing. Except i would have cut 50 of the overtime budget without putting any in reserve. I would have cut all four Academy Classes and in addition, i would cut, you know, hsoc, hot team and mounted horses. So i have now made a compromise where im only Cutting Three classes and now youre asking me to make a further compromise to cut only 25 of the overtime budget and from what ive heard so far. Chair its 50 . But putting 25 in reserve. Chair you can say no. Ill just say no. Chair youre saying no to the 25 reserve or 50 cut or all of it . Im fine with 50 cut. Chair but none in reserve. Is that correct . Thats right. Chair supervisor mandelman, how are you feeling . I am not comfortable and wont get comfortable and you shouldnt try to get me comfortable with significant cuts in overtime, that its just a flatout cut and it is not leaving time for further conversation about kind of where that is coming out of and what it does do safety. This is more than what im comfortable with but my feelings will not be hurt. I understand im outnumbered and i think you should move on. Chair i am comfortable with supervisor yees proposal and so, supervisor ronen, lets go now to your proposal because i think that i will revise it. Let me revise my proposal so were clear what it is. Ssince nobody agreed with my original proposal and if you could help me with the numbers, nick, that i would cut just 25 of the hsoc, Homeless Outreach team and mounted unit in year one and then an additional 25 of those three teams in year two. Sure, nick menard from the bla, through the chair. So the 25 of those three teams amount to 3. 5 million, approximately. In year one . Yes. And im assuming that the year one and year two costs are the same because thats the number that i have in terms of the salaries for those positions, because theres no pay raises. Right. So youre saying over the two years, its 3. 5 million . No, thats just for year one and for year two, it would be about 7 million. Ok. Chair supervisor ro income en, it is it your proposal, then, we put 7 million of the Police Budget on reserve . If we did a 3. 5 million cut year one and the justification there is to say, were serious about this, we are putting our money where our mouth is and we have a lot of work to do, right, as a city. And were starting that work and then, i would cover the 7 million in reserve for year two. But its less money in year two . So i propose a 50 in year one and then 25 in year two. And now im doing 25 in year one and 25 in year two, but youre right, i would put that in reserve in the second year. Thats 7 million in reserve. Chair so you want year one and two in reserve the second year . Right. Chair twentyfive the first year and less the second year, right . So the 25 . So its cumulative. Chair what i think is, is it 25 of the 50 . I think thats what im asking. Because youre cutting 50 and then you said i want to cut another 25 . So after the first year, youve cut 50 . I think its 25 the first year. I revised my proposal because nobody on the Budget Committee was with me, so im revising the proposal and im saying, could we put 25 in the first year, which is 3. 5 millions of the three teams, equivalent to what that would cost for the three teams and then cut an additional 25 in the second year, so that we would cut 50 of the teams over two years as we are putting in place a new system to deal with the unhoused population. I dont see the need for the mounted horses. But i also would be ok putting that 7 million in the second year on reserve since were going to be creating a new system and dont know what that will be. Chair so youre thinking so let me go to the chief. Chief scott, if we were to do these cuts, would they mean layoffs . There would mean layoffs, supervisor. Chair do you know how many layoffs that would be . Well try to get quick math while youre deliberating. Whats the total . The total is 3. 5. Chair thats not 3. 5 total, know, its 7 total. Is that right . No, the 3. 5 million in the first year, in addition to whatever we decide on overtime, is the cut for the first year and then in the second year, im proposing a 7 million cut, but in reserve, so that we can be working all year to figure out how were going to change the system. And so what i believe and tell me if im right, chief, is that in terms of lay dozeoffs, the fe were looking at is 3. 5 million. Am i understanding this correctly, everyone. Chair right. Probably about a dozen layoffs. Chair so im just going to say, i am not comfortable with layoffs. Supervisor ronen, i so appreciate the conversation that were having. I just am not comfortable with layoffs because i know i feel very mixed about it myself. Chair im sorry. Im not. Pair air