Supervisor wiener. I agree when you forward a program there maybe an expectation of continuation of the program of the program and we do this every year and senior meals and hiv services and rental subsidies and there is no guarantee it will. Beyond year one or two and beyond the years. So to say its a reason to question funding Free City College today because there may not be Adequate Funding in the future and that is true for many things that we you understand fund and the average taxpayer understands that and fees go up services get cut, faculty get laid off. Its not that we want them to happen but they often happen in these budget processes so i dont think thats a good enough rationale for not supporting Free City College today if we know we have the revenue coming in to fund that program this year. Again we want to provide some flexibility as this is a new program. We didnt want to make it a charter set aside yet. We want to evaluate how this program would move forward and there was no intent onure part to claim we were solving all of city colleges issues and pay raises and faculty issues and the board of trustees has been doing a tremendous job with the administration putting together a assessors parcelel tax by the voters of San Francisco and bringing city college back to where we want to see it. This is one piece and not a magic bullet to solve all of city colleges challenges so again colleagues i ask for your support on this measure. Colleagues any further comments . Okay. Madam clerk can you do a roll call on item 3. Is there a second on that item . On item 3 supervisor tang. Aye. Supervisor yee. [inaudible] aye. Supervisor kim. Aye. Supervisor wiener. Aye. Supervisor farrell. No. There are four ayes, one no. Okay. That item passes. Madam clerk on item 4 were going to duplicate the file so first lets take the duplicated file. The second file and have a motion to accept supervisor yees amendment into the file . Motion and second by supervisor kim. Take that without objection. On the duplicated file amended by supervisor yee. Can i have a motion to continue that resolution to the call of the chair . Motion by supervisor yee. Second by supervisor kim. We can do so without objection. [gavel] and madam clerk on the original item 4 roll call vote. On the motion. Supervisor tang. Aye. Supervisor yee. Aye. Supervisor kim. Aye. Supervisor wiener. Aye. Supervisor farrell. No. There are four ayes. One no. Okay that motions passes as well. Madam clerk do we have other business in front of us . There is no other business. Thanks everyone. Were adjourned. [gavel] [gavel] good morning everybody and welcome to San Francisco board of supervisors budget and finance Committee Meeting for wednesday june 22, 2016. My name is mark farrell im sharing this committee. Im joined by supervisor katie tang and norman yee and jane kim. Scott weiner is joining shortly. I want to thank linda one clerk of our committee as well as sfgov tv for covering todays meeting. With that mdm. Clerk any announcements yes. Please silence all cell phones electronic devices. Complete speaker cards thank you city manager please call item number one item number one is the hearing on the citys financial position and requesting the mayors budget director and the controller to report thank you. This item will be continuing all the time in case something comes up we have nothing in today so i will continue this item. With that will first take Public Comment. Anyone wishing to comment on item number one . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. [gavel] denied a motion to continue item number one . Seeing none, Public Comment is closed. Item number two item number two proposed budget and appropriations ordinance four departments of the as of may 31, 2015 for the fiscal year ending june 30, 2017 and june 30, 2010. Item number three, [reading code] thank you mdm. Clerk. Welcome back to our second round of budget hearings. We only have five departments in the second round to get overly that the record. We have two that i understand in agreement and three that are still discussing items. But the talk about as a committee. Im going to call to outliners that were in agreement first. First i called the department of technology. Good morning. Miguelcity cio department of technology. I am here thrilled to say that we are in agreement with harvey and his office. I want to thank them for their hard work and reengaging with us and talking through those concerns and coming to agreement with a good thank you very much. Colleagues if theres no other questions mr. Rose can we get a report . Yes mr. Chairman and members of the committee, on page 2 of our report, it shows our totals. As either standard upon occurs agrees with the recommended reductions. On page 3 of five of our report and the total recommendations are a 94. 603 in 1617. Total general fund savings including the encumbrances are sick 16 9. 0 49 and 1718 116. 239. Thank you. Any questions colleagues . Department or budget analyst . Okay. With that and i entertain a motion to accept the budget it was recommendations on our department of technologys budget . Moved and seconded. We can take that without objection [gavel] sorry, up next we have department of Emergency Management. Good morning supervisor. About director of Emergency Management and it pleases me today to be able to say we are in agreement with mr. Rose and the budget analyst i want to just take this opportunity to thank harvey and his staff and the mayor and his staff, melissa and anthony have both been incredible supporters and always the Controllers Office. Most importantly, my cfo, will lee was done a great job this year. Thank you thank you very much. Colleagues, any questions for staff . That euros can we go to our report . Yes. On page 14 of our report recommended reductions to the proposed budget and 6070 total 187. 651 which a onetime savings. Still allow an increase of about 10. 8 million or 13. 1 in the province budgeted we do not recommend any reductions for the proposed budget and 17acting as either standard the department doesnt concur with these recommendations on page 15 of our report thank you. Colleagues any questions or budget analyst with about . And i entertain a motion to accept the budget recommendations . Moved and seconded. We can take that without objection [gavel] up next, naomi kelly is here. We will do office of city minister, ms. Kelly the barman of homelessness after here and will go to police. Good afternoon im sorry good morning supervisors. Naomi kelly city administrator. We have not got in agreement with the budget analyst and i think this is the first time in my time as being city administrator. We have agreed as of last week to three and 64. 339 and cuts. We are in disagreement over 495 canopy suit comes down to three positions. Two of them are with our to contact Compliance Officers with the office of labor standards and enforcement. I think i should point out in the last two years there have been four corridor passed by the board of supervisors that would increase the workload with the office of labor standards and enforcement it every thing from the formal retail corridor, their chance corridor, minimum Wage Ordinance and the parental paid leave ordinance. In fiscal year 14, at the end of the year was about 110 cases opened in the last 10 years corridor and outreach to workers we ended with a caseload of 214 case good i think its very important to add new contact Compliance Officers we can help with the rollout of the paid parental leave ordinance. Everything from outreaching to businesses, a reaching to workers, establishing rules which were going to affect in january 27. Thats a heavy workload to do between now and then. Its not that we can absorb this work back into existing contracts because as you just heard, they have a huge caseload from the existing laws that they need to address. This, by addressing it in staffing closing about as fast as possible, that is money for workers who have not gotten the correct minimum wage, not got out there. That is money that does not go back to the city because back to the worker to rectify if they were not given their fair wage. So, i would argue that you please adopt our allow for these two positions to be passed. Second, other position is the own 933, the basic identity 0933 with a Digital Service didnt come a which is a new division i discussed this last week that would be looking at how do we create a new team that looks at , how do we provide Better Services to the residents of San Francisco be looking at the processes at doing our business with the city and county of San Francisco online. How do we streamline those processes . A good example of the opposite shortterm rentals. How do we streamline the registration process so that we can encourage more and more people were doing shortterm rentals to register in a sufficient way. How do wemany people want to come and get birth certificates or marriage certificate. Can you do it online . Dog licenses. Can we get dog licenses online versus takeup time to come down to city hall figuring out the maze of bureaucracy, and then finding those license. Many working people do not have the luxury to take off during the Business Hours to come and do this. How do we make the services of San Francisco more accessible to the residence in the first of San Francisco and not as accessible as in the convenience of doing it online, but this language efficiencies, disability making it accessible for Disability Access and much more. So, in the next year, when i want to focus on again is as i said, how do we make just starting with those programs in the city administrators office. Dog licenses. Items either the county Clerks Office whether its marriage certificates, birth certificates, death certificates, and also opposite shortterm rentals. How do we focus and make those services more efficient to the residence and tourist of San Francisco. I would hope that you would approve the 0933. Thank you very much miscalculation would back in a second. Mr. Rose, go to report, please . Yes. Members of the committee, on page 7 of our report our total recommended general Fund Reductions in 1617 re 57. 333. In 17 and 18, the total is 732. 269. So, supervisors, let me clarify the two recommendations that the department disagrees with. The first one is on page 9 of our report. On the Digital Services Program First of all were recommending approval of two of three requested you positions. So, we absolutely believe this is an essential function and we are recommending two of three. The one position that we do not believe is justifiedlet me mention the two positions that were recommending on iasbusiness analyst and a project manager. The one position that we do not believe is justified is a manager five position, and we note that according to the department of Human Resources, jobthe actual job description, the manager five is responsible for managing divisions of medium to large size. This Digital Services program has only three proposed employees. We are recommending approval of two of the three. So, we do not believe that the manager of five position is justified. I would be happy to respond to any questions. I can go to the next one. However the Committee Want to do this okay. So, in terms of just to be clear, on page 9 we are talking about the entire line item here that the 239 savings that youre talking about in the Digital Services, and then that is correct. That is just one position. Understood. The ones in dispute on the contact compliance with oh lse, this is the one 18 and 339. Thats a good two army to just clarify thats fine. I understand. Okay so, colleagues, we have a discussion here and would have to make a decision. I will note just on the outside, we agreed upon is not an agreement right now. Quickly we can get through committee. If not we have one more matter of committee that can break a logjam 01 way or another. If we need to but hopefully we can get it done without that. Mr. Rose mr. Chairman can i make one statement on the contact compliance position please again we are fully supportive. Were recommending those position. We are stating their vacant positions to fill the vacant positions. Thats why we are so, even though this is a reduction we are providing as a matter of fact, our recommendation provides for reducing attrition savings. That means to increase the salaries in order that they can fill the vacant positions. So, our statement to you is you should not in our judgment, you should not add new positions when you have existing vacant positions. And we are providing the necessary funds to fill those positions. If you accept our recommendation. Thank you mr. Rose. Supervisor kim im sorry mr. Rose. Back to director kelly, just want to ask again, you approved two out of the three position to use out of their position wasnt necessary because it is in a mediumsize organization so that level you disagree with that level of pay and classification . But you also feel this could be filled by existing vacant positions . No. Theres two separate recommendations supervisor kim. The first one you refer to is the Digital Services program and youre absolutely right. We have recommended approval of two of the three new positions. The reason why we recommended the disapproval of this manager position is because according to dhr, its not our judgmentas you stated, itthat position is just justified from medium to high level organizations it is only three employees in this entire organization. It doesntwe did not create the Human Resources classification. With respect to contact and Compliance Officers are we are recommending against two of those, only because there are seven vacant positions. There are seven vacant contact Compliance Officer positions currently. How many are actually filled . , the ftes are currently filled of the seven vacant therefore filled with temporary positions and the other remaining ones were actively recruiting right now in this interview set up how many total contact Compliance Officers are there within [inaudible] 18. Of the 18 seven are vacant whether taking full and seven vacant . Of the 18 there is other seconds seven vacant for a filled with people right now. Right. Im trying to figure out if you have 18, 7, or if there seven vacant of the 18 . Of the 18 positions, seven of them are technically vacant but god for that are filled with temporary positions yes im sorry supervisor kim, i want to clarify what we did in our recommendation because the department was stating that they do not have sufficient fulltime salary funds to fill all the vacant positions. So, we listen to that statement and we made a recommendation now before you to reduce attrition savings. By reducing attrition savings, that means were increasing the salaries needed to fill the vacant positions. So, its just a pure calculation. Anyone can dispute the calculation. If you accept our recommendation, what you would be doing instead of creating a new position you be feeling vacant position. Can i askim sorry that i will come back to you so you can respond to mr. Roses comments but if i can just ask one more question. So, there is currently seven vacant positions of which are city administrator has said theres four filled temporarily. This three vacant positions, 2 new requested positions of which you are saying you may not need because we just fill those three. The two positions, what month is a pickdoes it begin . My understanding october 1 the ms. Kelly of the can respond and i have some followup questions. Just to be attrition come i think if we set something to make you think it was with other standards and enforcement made of in a different division. We do have the funds to fund those position. I was a little lost on the last argument may we can just talk offline on that. , but back to the Digital Service positioned in the own night three days, i want to make it very clear to the board of supervisors that dhr approved this level of position because its not just a mediumsize department in the budget. The complexity and the skill set thats needed to put together a program of this nature. So, you need someone with a higher level of leadership and skills that this was something dhr approved at this level opposition and i think i should note and put that out there. Supervisors, just to clarify. Supervisor kim, dhr is the way it goes. You know this. The department requested a position. They then discuss it with dhr and dhr says, no, you dont need level of that position. The department goes back to dhr and they say, yes, we do need a. I understand. Okay. We approve it. Thats the way it happens. The bottom line is, theres three positions in this department. You dont need that high level of a position. So, coming back to ms. Kelly, i know that you had mentioned that there is almost a double of open cases now due to the lack of staffing. But i wasnt aware of that there are three more positions to fill, and tonight asking for two more on top of that. I just want to understand if you do really need two additional, if these three additional wouldnt help with those remaining cases . That three additional, not only do we have these ordinance we also the billing wage unit doing with attrition in those cases that need to happen. There is a huge caseload that we have to address. So, those existingjust the 18 can help with existing caseload. Thats not adding on a new corridor. So i strongly feel that we need two more positions to help with the increasing number of legislation that is being passed to effectively implement those pieces of legislation could with a fork every workers, their pathway to become permanent employees we picked