Participate in the meeting through Video Conference to the same extent as if they are physically present. Public comment will be available on each item on this agenda, sfgov. Org is streaming the number across the board. The opportunity to speak during Public Comment period is available via phone call by calling 4156550001. Meeting id 146 4585942 and press pound twice. When connected you will hear the meeting discussions, but you will be muted. Dial star 3 to be added to the speaker line. The best practice is to call from a quiet location, speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively, you can email myself the budget appropriations clerk at linda. Wong sfgov. Org. To submit Public Comment via email it will be forwarded to the board of supervisors and be included as part of the official file. Items are expected to appear on july 21st, and spanish and chinese interpretation are available for those who need Translation Services during Public Comment period. I will now pass on to our interpreters to provide summary of this announcement. [speaking spanish] [speaking chinese] thank you. Madame chair, this concludes our announcement. Before we start the meeting, i have madam clerk call our next item, i just wanted to refer back to our last meeting where i accidentally wanted advice from our City Attorney and i just wanted everyone to note that the City Attorney isnt typically sitting in our meeting during hearings unless theyre specially invited to present, but i will say that our City Attorney is more than happy to respond. If we need any clarifying questions answered that she can be there at a moments notice. I just wanted to note that. Thank you to our City Attorney. Madam clerk, i would like to call item number two first. Yes. Item number two, reviewing the budget process and related updates for fiscal year 20202021 and 20212022. For those who want to comment on this should call. Press pound twice. If you have not done so, dial star 3 to queue up to speak. Please wait until the system indicates you have been unmuted and you can begin your comments. Thank you very much. Today we have the mayors budget director ashley. Hi ashley. Hi chair fewer, good afternoon supervisors. Thank you for having me here today. Today i am going to provide you an overview of the mayors Budget Priorities following up on the letter that was submitted to the board on july 2nd. As part of the budget process legislation that was passed in december of last year, and as amended by the seven supplemental to the mayors emergency declaration, im happy to walk you through the mayors Budget Priorities for the upcoming two year budget. Before i start, i should say that we are still actively balancing the budget and these priorities have served as our Guiding Principles in doing so. So specifics and final details, i wont have those today but they will be coming out in the coming weeks as we work to introduce the budget by august 1st. So to begin, you know, its no secret, covid19 has impacted really every facet of our local economy and city operations. While its highlighted and exacerbated, many of the challenges we already face as a city, we think it demonstrates that were capable of taking bold and Decisive Action to address complicated challenges. So working together with the board, the mayor will focus her efforts on the following priorities. First, the mayor is committed to balancing the budget responsibly during these times of great economic uncertainty. The impacts of covid19 were stark and immediate and required us to close a budget gap just a few short weeks ago and we were able to do that largely with no Major Service reductions or layoffs. That was just the first hurdle that we need to overcome and we face this 1. 5 billion shortfall for the upcoming budget. The mayor has stated clearly that her goal in delivering this balance budget is to protect jobs and services and in doing so will require us to look at everything on the table, new revenues, use of reserves, other departmental and citywide reductions just to name a few. We also need to be mindful that there is tremendous risk on the horizon and uncertainty as we move through this budget process and into the coming years. You know, just to name a few, a surge in covid that we could be seeing now, slower economic recovery, fema reimbursement, these are some of the reasons why we need to make responsible choices today to help us hedge against the risk and uncertainty tomorrow. Despite sorry my dog is barking. Despite these uncertainties however, the mayor will continue to prioritize making progress on our shared priorities of homelessness and Behavioral Health. Covid19 did not make our Behavioral Health challenges go away. In fact, it highlighted the importance of continuing to prioritize in these areas. As you know, the mayor introduced the business tax measure that would unlock the contested revenue from prop c and the mayor will prioritize utilizing those funds to make progress in these areas should the funds become available. Furthermore, the heighten focus on Racial Equity will be reflect in the mayors proposed budget. They announced a plan to work with supervisor walton to redirect funding to the Police Department into services that benefit the African American community. The mayor will prioritize Decision Making in all aspects of her budget through a Racial Equity lens. And robust data drich response to the Ongoing Health pantoja. Covid19 is not over and the city must maintain an Emergency Response system that keeps residents safe and allows us to reopen in a responsible way. We will prioritize maximizing all state and federal resources to offset local costs, but know that the safety of our residents and the security of our economy depend on us listening to our Health Experts and the data that is right for our city. Thats a brief summary of the budget for the upcoming year. Im happy to take any questions you may have. Colleagues, any comments or questions . I have a few questions while my colleagues are formulating questions. So i understand that the departments have been giving you budget instructions. They are told to cut 10 and now its 12. 5 , is that correct . I want to get a deeper understanding about this. Can you share more about these new budget instructions . Sure thing. So, the mayor has sent a letter to our labor partners as part of this budget balancing exercise. Like i said, we need to look at all options on the table. She has made and ask to the labor partners to defer the upcoming wage increases and the two year budget. We have no concessions in hand and without those concessions, we wont be able to we need concessions from labor to help us balance this budget. Without that, we will need to cut deeper into departments. We will issue a second round of instruction to departments to serve as a contingency plan should conversations with labor not result in any savings to support closing the budget shortfall. So, am i seeing then that the first set of budget instructions that the mayor gave assumed that labor would be deferring their wage increases . The first set of budget instructions that the mayor issued back in june, may or june. May i think it was. Sorry, i cant remember what time is anymore. It was reflective. Those instructions were reflective of the deficit there the may 13th update, which assumes that we would defer the wage by six months in accordance with the economic triggers and our m. O. U. S. We always knew that you know, departmental reductions would not be 100 of the solution. Departments submitted proposals back to us. Its a menu of options for the mayor to choose from as shes balancing her budget. There are other levers she can pull that are not related to departmental proposals. So the proposals that departments submitted, youre right, the deficit was based on a six month wage deferral in accordance with our m. O. U. S. So it was my understanding that the m. O. U. S when we go into contract with them, they sign the contract before, was that there was a provision that if the general fund would be reduced by so much, they would get back. I thought that we already absorbed, they already agreed to 47 million in sort of give backs according to that. So was the Mayors Office assuming an addition to that in addition to the 47 million that they would also then be deferring wages . Because i just want to mention that i dont think that it is something that actually even labor leaders can agree to. I think that it would be with the membership. I find it a little unusual that the mayor would actually balance and give instructions to the department, knowing that there is a process that labor has to go through in order to actually defer those. So why would we give instructions to the departments when we didnt even allow labor to go through that process with their own membership and then assume that they would defer . It seems premature quite frankly. Yeah, so the mayor did make and ask to labor to defer the wage over two years. We have not had any conversations with labor. They have not responded to the letter. We do have some scheduled this week, but really this is all Contingency Planning and i think it goes back to the point i was making about just all of the uncertainty that we will be facing as a city in the upcoming year. You know, additional departmental reductions, labor comes to the table, if labor can give back beyond the 6 month wage deferral thats already assumed, there are things that could require us to rebalance through additional departmental reductions. So were really, you know, planning and having those opt n options in our back pocket should we make changes mid year for any number of reasons. Okay, i just think i want to say that i think to give the original budget instruction to cut 10 because they assume labor was going to give back on these wages, but that never transpired. Quite frankly, nothing was set into motion to make that happen and to assume that giving budget instructions with that assumption and now going back and saying oh, you know, now can you cut an additional, whatever percentage because labor did not give the concessions. I actually think its the messaging is not correct because in fact what should have happen is that the mayor should have probably given instruction to cut the department by 12. 5 and that after labor would agree then you would be looking at not significant cuts in the department. It just seems a little i just want to say it seems premature to budget on something that is very unknown. Yeah. Yeah, so given the timing then of it. We are asking them to resubmit those budgets with additional cuts. Will these new reductions be included many Mayors Office 1st submission . It looks like were running out of time. We are definitely running down to the wire in terms of timing, the extent of which these new proposals will be incorporated in the august 1st budget. Were sort of running out of time. I think it would likely should we need to take any additional reductions would be in the form of perhaps should any of the assumptions in the budget on august 1st not come to pass. I miss that. Yeah. You cut out ashley. Oh, im sorry. My internet is not great. You were saying what would happen it was the punch line. Would you mind if i turned my camera off. That might help. Thats fine. I have to turn minoff mine off a lot. To chair fewers question about timing, youre right. We are running down to the wire on what would happen. Were receiving new proposals from departments that would be due july 27th. Thats only a few days before the august 1st submission deadline. So those would be, i think those would be options for us to consider for a rebalancing plan should any of the assumptions in our budget should not come to pass as submitted by the mayor. So that means you would not the mayors budget would not reflect the additional 2. 5 in cuts in departments. Is that what youre saying . Its unlikely we will have time to incorporate them. Okay. So would we at the board see the 2. 5 reductions that the departments have proposed in additional cuts . I mean they will be submitted to our budget our office, and we will be happy to share them as we receive them. All right, and then i wanted to ask about the Police Department. We heard a lot about the reductions into the Police Department and we had press conferences. Could you give us any idea on what the mayor is looking at in the Police Department to reduce . Sure, i can give you some initial ideas. So obviously the department itself proposed about 23 million worth of reductions through cutting vacant positions. So that is a proposal that we have taken into consideration. As you all know, the Police Departments budget is heavily personnel driven over 80 of their budget as personnel, salaries, and benefits. There are really limited choices there beyond people and trying to maximize any further reductions in the form of nonpersonnel reductions is an area were looking at. So in the personnel reduction, do you know whether or not that is a civilian personnel. Depending on what the office offered, were looking at the pros and cons of taking one versus the other and combination of the two. Okay, so do you so did you say an amount ashley that theyre looking at to target . I dont have a specific amount, but i can say that the department itself had offered about 23 million worth of reductions in what they had proposed to their commission. Sure, so when we actually look at the 23 million in reduction, that also is part of the reduction that the mayor is requiring of every city department. Is that correct . Thats right. That was their reduction target. So in order to generate yeah, go ahead. So it wasnt in addition to. So for example, the mayor would give instruction to say every Department Must cut by 10 , but she was looking especially at the Police Department. So i just wanted to know if there were additional cuts above the required 10 that the mayor had instructed for every single department. The question is was she looking at cuts beyond the 23 million . Yeah. The 23 million seems like its the baseline. Every department is asking to cut by 10 , right . Yeah. So thats their 10 . They would im asking if the mayor is looking to cut deeper than the 10 than what she is requiring of every other department in San Francisco. Uhhuh, yeah. So like i said, there are other nonpersonnel areas that weve been reviewing and analyzing as part of this budget balancing process. The same goes for every department. You know, every department offered some amount of reduction, not every department offered up to the 10 . So its really my team has been working really fast and furious on the last month since we got Department Proposals to understand whats possible, whats feasible, in a way that maximizes jobs and minimizes service reduction. And it is our job actually to find beyond the 10 . Thats right. So supervisor ronen. Yes, thank you chair fewer for the excellent questions. That was really helpful and sparking my brain. So, what are the nonpersonnel reductions youre looking at the Police Department. Very few options because the department is personnel focused. There are vehicles that our option to review other equipment and any kind of personal Service Contracts within the department. Youre not looking at all about management staff, maybe pairing down management staff . Im sorry, i thought the question was nonpersonnel. This is a separate question. Oh, okay. I was moving on from the nonpersonnel one. Okay, thanks. Sure, i mean you know, like i said, everything is on the table. These are hard and complicated decisions. As i walk through the mayors priorities to minimize Service Reductions and preserve jobs. So were taking you know, were making decisions through that lens. So im curious, as youre doing this, the police offered up 23 million, which happens to be where their vacancies are at this time or the monetary amount of the vacancy. Is that how youre looking at the reductions or are you looking at it like Police Reform or maybe its not necessary for police to do traffic stops or not having Police Involved in homeless and Mental Health is e issues, like looking at it in terms of the type of work that Police Officers do now that perhaps they shouldnt be doing in this new way of looking at policing in our communities or are you looking to set them, what happens to the monetary amount of vacancy. That makes total sense and its a great question. I think its both. They are both shortterm decisions we can make and those tend to be the quick, you know, what are some monetary reductions we can take. Then the longer term discussions are around how do we change policing, how do we change response, how do we go through the road map that the mayor outlined as it relates to police. Those things take a lot longer. It will require resources in other areas as well. So its kind of both. I think there is some shortterm things we can accomplish in this budget and there are some things that will take more time and more resources and more thought to implement in this budget. Were trying to be targeted on what we can take care of now and what we know and what we need to think about more as we move forward in the next year or two years and onward. You said when the mayor held her press conference on homelessness and Mental Illness and no longer using the police for those purposes, is sh