Lawrence from San Francisco government t. V. For broadcasting this meeting, madame clerk, are there any announcements . Silence all cell phones and electronic devices. Completed speaker cards and copy of any documents should be submitted to the clerk. Items acted upon today will appear in the july 9th, board of supervisors just board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. Thank you very much. Lets see. So i just want to welcome everyone back. Good morning, today is the final day of the boards deliberations as we work to craft a comprehensive starting plan to pass out a Budget Committee after hearing from hundreds of people at Public Comment earlier this week. As ive mentioned before, we have received over 400 million in budget requests here, and we are working hard to address incredible need and communities in communities across San Francisco. Yesterday, i released a spending plan after hearing from the public and from my colleagues. My hope is we can grow the available funding even more to prioritize a few more outstanding issues. Today we will address a few more items and recess the meeting so my office can work with the controller to prepare a spending plan. Colleagues, i propose we recess until 2 00 p. M. After our meeting today to allow for that time to work. Does that sound good . That is great. Thank you very much. Madame clerk, will you please call item number 3 . Resolution concurring with the controller specification of the total previously approved can be provided by a contractor and the city and county employees. Thank you very much. I believe we have our controller good morning, supervisors. We presented this item briefly last week. I am obviously available to answer any questions you have. Great. Mr. Controller, i think when i pulled this item that last year, the item was just for june. It is actually a pretty hefty item. We do contract out a lot of employees, and so in the original legislation it said that for an emergency situation can you give me some clarification on that, and whether or not how will we need to declare an emergency situation in order to contract out these folks . I would be happy to. The Authority Contract services lives in the charter under Voter Initiative from the late seventies. That is the prop jay contracting process which we described. The language in the ordinance as it refers to emergency isnt driven by the need to declare an emergency under the chart here, but under a provision every labor contract. That is what it is only in cases where the city is proposing a new contracting proposal that affects current bargaining unit members or requires positions being cut from the budget. I think this is a legislative holdover from the past that has been carried forward year after year. It is actually not required for the board or the mayor to declare an emergency to move forward with this item. So we have had this in place for about 15 years. Is that correct . The contracting allowances under prop jay and it goes further than then further than that. The majority of the services you see in front of you have been contracted out for 15 years or more in these cases. Okay. The reason i mention this is because many of those positions that i looked at were entrylevel positions and that we could actually be hiring employees, our own employees. I know its more expensive, so was this designed first as a cost savings measure . I believe, yes, these contracting proposals when they were first entered into many years ago, were designed to save city money, and are finding as they continue to do so. The choice about whether you want to move forward isnt going for our office, it is one for the mayor and the board to decide. Our job is to certify that if you do continue to contract out these services, that they do result in cost savings and thats the analysis. That is the purpose. According to our records, it shows as though we do have some cost savings from that. That is correct. Okay. I think it is a bigger issue, actually, about contracting out that cant be discussed in this length of time now, so why dont we move this particular item to the full board of july 16th. Can replace a Public Comment . Yes. Are there any members of the public who like to comment on item number 3 . Seeing none, Public Comment is close. I would like to make a motion to move this with a positive recommendation to the full Board Meeting of july 16th. Can i have a second, please . I will take that without objection. Hold on. I said we should just go ahead and pass those out, but i also think we should look at this. Yeah. I think youre absolutely right. I think that this is something we should look at because i also would like to see the numbers of whether or not we are contracting out more people than we have before. Historically, how many people are we actually contracting out . I think it would be a good starting point. Okay, thank you very much. We passed that out of committee, thats great. Lets hear item four and five. His recreation and park in the room . They are not in the room. Okay. Then lets take item can you please read item one and two, please. Item one is the budget appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and estimated expenditures for the city for the fiscal year ending june 30 th 2020 and june 30th 2021 item two is annual salary ordinance in the annual budget and appropriation ordinance for the fiscal year ending june 30 th, 2020 and june 30th 2021 continuing, creating, or establishing these positions. Thank you very much. This is a continuing conversation that we have had oh,. Here is recreation and park. Okay, great. I believe that we have a report from the controller on items one and two. Recreation and park has just gotten into the room now. I thought we could get rid of that first, but they are a little late. And then the b. L. A. Has a report , also, for us. Thank you again for continuing this item from last week. The analysis that my office wanted to perform was whether or not, which reduction the mayor has imposed on the budget, that the committee is enacted with reductions on the b. L. A. , and with the additional possibilities that were discussed in Committee Last week we simply wanted a review of the current payroll and hiring plan against that revised budget to ensure that there were Funds Available to support those and to determine what positions are funded here and which art. We really appreciate having the opportunity to do that and have that item back here today. Would you find, after much work with the department, they have presented us with projections for the coming fiscal year, which we find to be credible. It indicates they can, indeed support the current payroll and their hiring plan within the budget as it has been amended, which means, effectively, the reductions you were talking about last time of the four probation officers, which i believe was a motion that supervisor ronen raise, those are indeed funded positions. The board does reduce those positions and the department would have to start stop the hiring processes for them. They would be taking money from their budget. That is my report on this item. Thank you very much. Lets hear from the b. L. A. Now. Good morning. As you hopefully have seen, we handed out a revised list of recommendations for the juvenile Probation Department to correct for a technical error. The current total recommendations for the department in fiscal your 2019, 2020 total 274,315. Those are all general fund ongoing savings, and for fiscal year 20202021, the total is now 286,279. Those are all general fund, all ongoing savings. Thank you very much. So there has been a correction to the budget and amended. I believe these are recommendations that have already been accepted by the department of juvenile probation is that correct . That is correct. I believe you have already indicated to the controller that it is the intention of this committee to assess. Generally, tonight, we will seek consensus on whether or not we accept the amended version from gpd. Good. Mr. Controller, please know that the board has [indiscernible] question. Yes . To the b. L. A. , when we state that the first year is ongoing, is that you who deals with the second year, or zletter 286,000 for the second year of top of the 234,000 . Basically what we are getting in savings for the first year is 200 some deeper thousand 305. For the second year, incrementally increases. Those are the savings for each of the years. I just wanted to make sure that we didnt miss these. Correct. Thank you very much. Good morning. Thank you for agreeing to the recommendations of the b. L. A. And continue our conversation, i think we had some discussion about four positions that probation officers have taken over, and i believe these are probation officers that used to work at log cabin. Is that correct . [indiscernible] there are officer conditions in the departments budget. There was a separate conversation with respect to five log cabin around councillor positions that are currently vacant, and one director position for the ranch. The department is in concurrence that the log cabin branch positions should be removed from the departments budget with the accompanying attrition his adjustment for those positions so that there is no question or concern with respect to those positions. We expressed at the last hearing our desire to maintain the four deputy probation officer positions that were identified as vacant and pending being filled. There were a total of 62, two of which, during our last conversation, supervisor ronen reflected in need to maintain those positions given the specific assignments. There are two positions that we were targeting for schoolbased probation officers, and two positions that will be designated to deliver cognitive, behavioral interventions for young people on probation. At this time, while we certainly concur with the controllers position with respect to the departments ability to fund each of those vacant positions, we would respectfully ask that there be some reconsideration with respect to taking all four of those positions so that there is at least some flexibility for the department to implement any new legislative mandates that we are going to be responsible for, specifically, im anticipating that there will be some legislative requirements associated with s. B. 439 which is a new provision that requires alternatives to this system for young people who are younger than 12 years old. So as i stand here today, i certainly respect the recommendations and i appreciate supervisor ronens concern with respect to reducing our budget. I would ask that the be some reconsideration to preserve some portion of the remaining four deputy probation officer positions. Thank you very much. Supervisor ronen . Thank you. Thank you for recognizing the need to reduce the positions from a log cabin that are no longer needed. I appreciate that. I do continue to feel that its important and necessary to reduce those four positions, and i just wanted to repeat for the committee the reasons why. First of all, the research doesnt support having probation officers clear the role of, you know, being inside of middle schools and providing cognitive behavioral intervention. As i shared last week, Research Published by the anti Casey Foundation in 2018 indicates that putting probation officers and middle schools will disproportionately impact youth of color, and will not have a preventive impact, but increase the likelihood that youth will end up in deeper and deeper involved in the system. Furthermore, experts in the field have stated that having probation officers conduct Cognitive Behavioral Therapy is again, placing Law Enforcement officers in an inappropriate role. For example, the National InstituteNational Institute for criminal Justice Reform recommends that probation officers should be connecting youth and families to cognitive behavioral support in the community, not in the department furthermore, these supports can be covered for youth under medicaid, meaning we could draw down federal funds for offering therapy in a community rather than paying for it to county funds. Second, these roles that Mental Health and Development Professionals are already doing both in our schools in our community. School social workers, Wellness Center directors, nonprofit Youth Development staff and therapists can play and do play these roles. I reached out to members of the San Francisco school board, to the united educators of San Francisco, and two sciu, and all of them were shocked and dismayed to hear about both of these proposals because they have workers already playing these roles in our schools, and they are concerned that no one from juvenile probation has reached out to them to let them know that this was even being considered. Finally, as a board, we have decided to close Juvenile Hall by december 2021. I believe that eliminating these positions is a crucial step towards the further getting closer to that goal. We must be looking at the budget over these next two and a half years to see where we can make smart decisions with regards to vacant positions and positions that are no longer required for daytoday operations. Therefore, i would like to make the following motion. I would like to make a motion to cut forward four deputy probation officer positions and associated salary funding that were slotted for the positions i discussed. Two, to be in middle schools and to run cognitive behavioral intervention groups. I would also like to make a motion to cut Position Authority for five unfunded positions for log cabin branch. Three of those are class 8321 and one is class 8564. As we discussed last week. These are positions that have been vacant since the closure of the ranch and that the department has not budgeted for. Finally, if there are recommendations that come out of the Blueribbon Panel that require additional staff that worry are not anticipating right now, we can revisit that at the appropriate time, you know, with budget supplementals, with position supplementals, et cetera. I hope to have this part the support of my colleagues for these motions. Through the chair, supervisor ronen, i just want some clarification. So i get the part of cutting the position to save some money so we could put it back into the ad back process, but i thought you want that money for a specific activity or line item. So if that is true, is this something that has been discussed through the request to support certain projects. What we have been doing is asking everybody to come up with ideas that we do have funding to add back and we are not saying cut here and give us certain things, so im a little uncomfortable with that they need to have some discussion about that. I dont know if we have had. Can i explain . That is a good point. When we passed the legislation to close Juvenile Hall, the part of that was we werent we were going to cut from the budget the 13 million that it takes over time to run Juvenile Hall, but not take those investments out of the area of serving youth that fall to the criminal Justice System. So while it is not specifically tagged to any item in the ad back amount, there are already on the adback list many items, including reopening of the Girls Group Home in San Francisco, programs through other organizations for youth, and there was one other, the program through huckleberry youth services. It is not that it is tagged precisely for those services, but it goes to the general ad back fund, and there are, on the ad back list, those youth serving services that equal about the same amount. It is not anything official like we are reserving them for a particular proposal. The important point, im sorry if im not explaining myself well, but the important point i want to make is that as, over time, we cut the budget for Juvenile Hall, we shouldnt be diverting that money into other needs of the city. We still need those investments in the youth that need the most most help in the system and we should be reinvesting that money in alternative interventions for youth who commit crimes to get them on the right track. So to repeat, we are not getting rid of anything, we are not reserving. If we cut these positions, the money goes to the general adback pot, but all under our ad back list that we have all seen, there are communitybased interventions for youth involved in the criminal Justice System that, you know, we have collectively agreed are a priority to fund. Does that make sense . I am okay as long as this is on our list. Otherwise we would go down a slippery slope of cutting from this particular department and it has to match up with something. Absolutely. That is not what is happening. Thank you. I would say as budget chair, also, as you know, we have 400 million of ask, so we are not adding any more ask to this list. This is the list as it is. You have all seen what has been requested. Definitely we can use these funds toward that, but i think it is the prerogative, quite frankly, of the budget chair to make that list and also to prioritize items in that. So i am going to turn it over to supervisor mandelman. I thank you might have questions yeah. Chief nancy, you are going to somewhat you are in somewhat a peculiar position, as you know most of the departments who come before us, we have gotten recommendations recommendations from the budget and legislative analyst and that has formed the framework in which we have approached cuts to that department. In general, we have accepted those recommendations, and in a few cases we have had discussions about those recommendations and have done some or all of what the b. L. A. Was recommending. In your case, it appears we are entering into programmatic discussions about the work of your dep