Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the June 12th 2026 meeting of the budget and appropriation committee.

I'm Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I am joined by Supervisor Danny Sauter, Shaman Walton, and shortly Cheyenne Chin.

Our clerk is Brent Halipa.

I would like to thank uh Jeanette uh Eganloff for from SFGov TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcement?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

And should you have any documents to be included as part of the file so it'd be sure they should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

Public comment will be taken at the end of the or for the items on this agenda.

When your items of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along those curtains.

And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by television to your left by the doors.

If you wish for your name to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the budget and appropriations committee clerk at B R E N T.

A L I P A Hat S F G O V dot O R G.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall at one.

Dr.

Carlton be good to place room 244, San Francisco, California, 941 at 2.

And thank you, Madam Chair.

That concludes my announcements.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And before we start, we'll need to excuse President Rafael Mendelman as well as Supervisor Dorsey.

Second by Supervisor Danny Sauter and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, uh to excuse Supervisors Dorsey and Mendelman.

Member Sauter.

Sauter I member Walton.

Walton, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And I would also like to announce that for today, public comments will be limited to one minute.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call items one through three together.

Yes, items one through three.

Apologies for one second.

Okay.

Items one through three are items as it relates to this committee's consideration of the mayor's proposed budget for the departments of the city and county of San Francisco for fiscal years 2026 through 2027 and 2027 to 2028.

Item one is our hearing to consider the mayor's proposed budget.

Item number two is the proposed budget and appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures for departments of the city and county of San Francisco as of May 30th, 2026.

And item number three is a proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the AAO for the fiscal years ending June 30th, 2027 and June 30th, 2028.

Continuing creating or establishing these positions, enumerating and including therein all positions created by charter or state law for which compensations are paid from city and county funds and appropriated in the AAO, authorizing employments or continuation of appointments there too.

Specifying and fixing the compensations and work schedules thereof and authorizing appointments to temporary positions and fixing compensations.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And before we officially start, I would like to uh for the official record uh to um announce the additional agreements that we reach with the following uh enterprise departments uh for planning departments they will be accepting uh they will be accepting budget and legislative analyst recommendations for six and rejecting five seven.

They partially accept it um one two, three for year one, but not year two.

We will be placing recommendations eight and nine on reserve until the board approves a new permit system contract.

For the department of building Inspection.

They will be accepting budget and legislative analyst recommendations three through seventeen, nineteen, twenty-one, twenty-two, and rejecting twenty-three, twenty-four.

They have mod and modified rejection of recommendations one, two, eighteen, twenty, rejecting these recommendations, but updating the amount from $45,000 to $39,000 for each item.

We will be placing recommendation 25 on reserve until the board again approves a new permit system contract.

And with that, I am I'm checking in to see if the mayor's office has a technical adjustments that you would like to introduce right now.

Hi, Supervisor Matthew Puckett, Deputy Director with MBO.

Uh, we will have technical adjustments at some point today.

I do not believe they're ready.

I think it's your round one, but we will go back to we'll come back to you whenever you're ready.

Would you you could just remind me it's my it's my apologies that I was it was my oversights yesterday that uh Director Kittler was ready to announce, but I adjourned the meeting.

Absolutely.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so with that, city attorney.

Welcome.

Good morning, madam chair and supervisors.

Thank you for the opportunity to present our budget.

We all know your job is challenging, and I appreciate all of your work.

As you know, we are your attorneys.

Our office provides a wide range of civil civil legal services to 100 plus clients.

Advice and counsel, drafting countless ordinances and contracts, defending thousands of matters, affirmative litigation, and public integrity work.

Our expertise spans 24 legal teams alphabetically from our airport to our worker protection teams, providing essential services to city departments and ensuring core services to San Franciscans.

Our work touches every corner of the city.

We're in the midst of everything hard and messy, working to solve the most complicated problems and provide core services alongside the Board of Supervisors.

With only a few minutes, I'm going to touch on a few budget-related topics.

Our defensive litigation teams, which aggressively defend thousands of cases, have been extremely busy as discovery is more complicated and more cases are going to trial.

Our efforts saved the city billions of dollars in potential liability.

For example, our tax team saved the city 120 million dollars this year with a settlement in which Airbnb ended its lawsuit against us with no payment from the city.

And we're currently defending over a billion dollars in other tax cases.

Much of our work comes to us from clients or from lawsuits filed against the city.

We don't control the spigot, but our work inflow is ever increasing.

Our resources constantly stretched.

If we don't defend a case outside council would need to, which would be far more expensive, we're a high quality, cost-effective way to meet our city's legal needs.

Now, our office not only works on tax matters, contracts, real estate deals, and bonds that ensure the city generates revenues, but we also bring in revenue.

This year, affirmative litigation team recovered $4 million from tobacco retailers flouting our public health laws.

And thank you to our partnership with Supervisor Walton on that.

Our code enforcement team has brought in over $9 million in settlements and judgments since 2025, working with many of you, and we've recouped another five million dollars from an oil company that caused an oil spill near Fishman's Wharf.

Our worker protection efforts, which I've prioritized during my tenure as city attorney, have restored over $28 million of stolen wages and benefits to the pockets of workers.

Our claims team pursues collections for damage to city property, and we've secured close to $2 million this past fiscal year.

Now, as you well know, San Francisco faces an unprecedented threat by our federal government to our communities, our programs, and our budget.

And our office is working day and night to protect San Franciscans from these threats.

Last year, your board and our mayor gave us a million dollars from the Reserve Fund to hire several new attorneys to help this fight alongside the work of many others across our entire office.

We have filled all of those positions and we've put that funding to good use.

In 16 months, we have filed 16 lawsuits against the Federal Administration, three-quarters of which have focused on protecting our city's federal funding.

The good news is we are winning over 90% of our cases in the lower courts, protecting billions in federal funding, and I also mentioned that we are pursuing $440 million dollars in FEMA reimbursements for costs the city incurred during the pandemic, expenses we've already paid for, and I'll note that anything that we get from that will be a net gain to our budget.

Our office advises public safety departments on initiatives to combat crime and ensure safe and clean streets.

Whether we're using code enforcement to shut down corner stores, fronting as gambling and drug dens, engaging with law enforcement and first responders on emergency planning, or investigating major incidents like floods to mitigate claims against the city, were a key part of our city's public safety efforts.

We've worked thousands of hours on every aspect of our city's homelessness and mental health responses, both in litigation and advice, drafting and approving hundreds of agreements to address what's happening on our streets, representing the city and dependency and conservatorship cases.

When it comes to housing, we advise on housing element and zoning, development projects, and hundreds of new state laws.

And we've worked, we've done significant work alongside each of you to streamline government operations from charter reform to improving contracting and procurement processes.

Our office processes hundreds of grants and contracts to foster economic development and bolster transportation and tourism, and our public integrity work ensures that taxpayer dollars are spent appropriately.

Now on to our budget.

For this coming fiscal year, our proposed budget is $132 million.

On the sources side, 68% of our budget are work orders from departments to pay for our services.

On uses, nearly 80% of our budget is personnel related.

17% for critical non-personnel costs, 3% for services to other departments, and our federal response program is less than a percent.

Essentially, our budget is made up of personnel costs and fixed expenses with no excess.

While we have a handful of vacancies largely attributed to the recent hiring freeze and routine departures, most are approved to fill and close to, and we're close to firing to final hiring decisions.

We need to fill all vacancies.

Here are this year's changes to our budget.

The adjustments are related to personnel costs.

Where possible, we have cut rent, subscriptions, materials, and department work orders.

In fiscal year 2728, you can see an increase to our attrition savings.

We anticipate working with the mayor's office on ways that we can achieve this without impacting core functions.

With that, I appreciate your patience, your time, your patience, and uh happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Just want to express our gratitude to you and your team.

Thank you so much for holding the city up and guarding not just, I think, not just our funding, but also our rights uh as a city during the very difficult time against the Trump administration.

So we're very grateful for the work.

Um I don't see any name on the roster.

Thank you, City Attorney Chu, for your work.

Thank you for your partnership.

Thank you.

And with that, uh I'm gonna call on Director Kittler for introducing the technical adjustment.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, Sophia Hitler from the Mayor's Budget Office.

Uh, as I distributed yesterday, um, we are introducing our first round of technical adjustments for the mayor's proposed budgets.

Um, these include correcting revenue from ongoing to one time in the human services agency for the um federal and state revenue reserve for the eligibility workers and case managers, correcting non personnel services expenditures at the human service agency, correcting expenditures for the PEF baseline and the Department of Children, youth and families moving it from across years, aligning revenues and expenditures at the Arts Commission and the Department of Public Health, correcting codes at the health service system, department of human resources, department of public health, department of homelessness and support of housing, sheriff the port, and the office of the city administrator and the fire department, uh correcting and updating positions in DEM retirement system and DHR.

We are aligning expenditures to match updated federal revenues for the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing, and then shifting Gen funding from the MCO reserve to the cost of doing business in fiscal twenty seven and reducing excess ERAF revenue in fiscal twenty eight to reflect state budget adjustments and offsetting with excess MCO reserve.

This will reduce the proposed fiscal 27 budget by 110,821 dollars and will reduce the fiscal 28 budget by 19 million dollars 500 19,541,618 dollars resulting in savings of 1.4 million dollars in year one and a cost of 3.18 million dollars in year two the net impact to the general fund is 1.7 million dollars there is a table that I've distributed and should be available online and I am available for any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you we appreciate the technical adjustment on saving and so with that um and colleagues these the this is the information we distributed yesterday and also uh electronically and with that I should say Sophia uh director kitler already distributed hard copies and electronic copy yesterday and so with that we will go to superior court.

Good morning uh Chair Chan um and committee I'm Brandon Riley court executive officer and I am going to present on your civil grand jury and uh indigent uh defense um the civil grand jury uh county function managed by the court um we need the two hundred and fifty uh thousand uh dollars um to manage this project we are the fiscal agent for the project uh the two hundred and fifty thousand is the same as uh last year next for indigent defense um this is where the court um manages the court appointed uh counsel for conflicts um when there's conflicts from the public defender's office um we believe that um just injustice for all and that gideon v Wayne Wright says that this must happen um via the uh US constitution um and that budget is 10 point uh six million dollars uh an increase this year of eight hundred and ten um mil eight hundred and ten thousand dollars a eight percent increase um that increase uh due to um program increase uh cpi uh increase uh the percentage is likely uh to be insufficient uh for the work that uh the conflicts panel is doing now because of the unavailability uh that the uh public public defender's office is claiming um there's a huge influx of misdemeanor cases uh surge of misdemeanor cases um that are um causing a huge backlog and doubling the work uh for the conflicts uh panel and the active pending case load is up about eight forty four percent um overall that's for um felony cases and then you'll see the rapid um escalation of cases next slide the rapid escalation of cases um that are going to the conflicts panel um there will be even with this eight hundred um and fifteen thousand dollar increase that we budget for we do know there will be early next year we will have to seek a supplemental and in years past we have said we would have to seek a supplemental but this year we've already we already see that we're on track uh by early next calendar year we will need a supplemental if the public defender's office continues with its unavailability next slide so thank you that's what we have for indigent defense and for the grand jury um I'm available for any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

And Silvervisor Sauder.

Thank you.

Question on the I see the increase in the indigent defense administration, 800, 800,000 increase or so, but you say that's that is likely insufficient given the increased workload.

What do you think if you if you were to be able to truly square up the budget with the increase in caseload, what would that look like?

You have those numbers.

Good morning, supervisor.

I'm the CFO for the San Francisco Superior Court.

If we were going to true up that uh expenditures, we would need maybe another one or two million dollars per year if the case load would stay at this uh this elevated level.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you for your uh presentation today.

Um I think that I have um expressed that concern, and I think that we have um and thank you so much for your letter and your response specifically around pretrial program.

Um I think that it is thank you for the feedback.

Um though I want to say that it still did not to me um responding to my original inquiry about how um the recommendation of going from uh right now sheriff's department along with pretrial program, shifting that to adult probation is going to yield any better results, and knowing that sheriff's department elected official and and being able to have that contract and have that program uh in partnership with the sheriffs would be anything better than the adult probation.

Um could you articulate that a little bit more on the record?

Well, I I believe um that the uh relationship that we have now uh that with pretrial that is sort of managed by uh the sheriff department and has been for a number of years.

Um I think that that arrangement works no longer because of a lack of transparency, a lack of accountability, and a lack of oversight.

And I think in one of my messages to you or in in the letter to you, uh we pointed out in thousands of PSAs, um, it just a spot check.

I don't know that it was in any kind of um uh review.

It was just a spot check.

That that that was all that the sheriff had done on the um assessments.

I think they had only looked at eight assessments on the reports to the court, thousands of reports to the court, and the sheriff had only looked at 22 of those, and so I think there's a lack of oversight when it comes to uh pretrial, and as it relates to request and the relationship directly with pretrial and the work that they provide in court, their reports um haven't always been timely.

Um their reports do not they do not have staff in court to stand behind their reports, and the court has asked for over and over that you have a case manager just like APD.

They show up in court if they have a report, the person who wrote the report is there, the the court can examine that person.

That doesn't happen in pretrial.

We have to go and all of the reports from pretrial are signed by the executive director of pretrial.

They're not signed by case managers, so then you have to go find the executive director, find out who wrote the report, and then bring that person back.

So it's a sorry to interrupt, but how do you then see adult probation would be operating any differently?

Because adult probation, this is actually and in all of the letters that said, you know, we can't believe adult probation can do it.

This is the work that adult probation was established to do.

This is community supervision.

They they are in the space to do it.

They do it right now, though it's post-conviction, they do this work right now.

I'm sorry to interrupt again, though.

Help me understand better.

Um, that isn't it that pretrial program actually managed both post conviction uh actually uh that pretrial adult probation only manage post conviction population, whereas pretrial inclusive of those who are not, and so to shift that into to count on the adult probation to actually manage a whole different population, but you think that is more effective.

I do think it's more effective.

I think I think they already have the experience of supervising the community.

They already have the infrastructure in place, and in fact, many of the people who are on pretrial now go to the uh CAS Center that the uh adult probation runs.

Basically, what adult probation can do is partition, do a wall garden, partition off that post-conviction condition um conviction work that they normally do and wall it off for the pretrial um population.

Basically, pretrial population, you can say that pre-pre-trial population will be at the cask center down on 6th Street, and the post-convicted people, they would get services down on Bryant Street.

They can wall that off and they can offer these same services that pretrial services offering and many of the services I'm telling you that are all they are already offering the same services.

And so that's what I think I said um when I was meeting with um supervisors earlier when I was telling them about the court wanting to make this move, and that there is some duplication of effort here, that some of the same services that pretrial office offered, they're already being offered by uh adult probation.

And so I think we will achieve some savings once we're in adult probation, we apply some technology uh to uh some of the processes, and we realize those places where there's a duplication of effort.

I think this uh is a better arrangement for oversight.

I think it's a better arrangement for accountability, and I certainly know that it's uh uh a better arrangement for um transparency.

Thank you.

I wanna say that in terms of cost saving, not the case according to the budget and legislative analyst, and that you it certainly there are both the sheriff's uh Paul Mayamoto as well as our public defender uh no raju has actually indicated a difference of opinions than yours, but thank you so much for being there.

I want to do that.

I never no no no no no no no.

I want to be clear.

I wanna be clear that I'm not gonna talk over the budget chair.

You're not gonna talk over the budget.

You are not going to talk over the budget chair in this chamber.

You are not going to talk over the budget chair in this chamber.

You're gonna let the budget chair finish, and then you will talk.

You're not gonna talk and disrespect the budget chair in this chamber.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

And if I may, I I just want to say thank you so much for your for your opinion.

Like I I wanna to say that uh there are different opinion out there, and there's different analysis out there.

We appreciate your letter, uh, but I I I think that we're gonna move on on this.

I I just want to make sure that I know that you have your response of the letter.

I wanted to have your response also publicly on the record at this moment by you uh at during this hearing.

Really appreciate your work and thank you so much for your opinion.

Thank you.

I I'd like to respond.

I never said that it was going to be that it wasn't going to be an increased cost.

There will be an increased cost.

So, Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, and thank you for your presentation.

Um, but are you aware that the sheriff's department and the public defender's office disputes your data and your interpretation of the work of pretrial?

I believe my data is um honest and true data.

I don't know where um the public defender got his data.

Um I believe that the data that the court pulled from its database is the true data of what the work that needs to be done.

And then the proposed amount of resources that we're talking about is the is that up to like four million dollars and not actually the same amount of money that we spend right now with pretrial doing the work?

I I don't think that is that is correct.

I think that um there will be an increase, and I think you will see that for uh quality, you have to pay more.

Uh but I don't think that the increase is the same as what you're paying uh pretrial today.

So I'm I'm having a hard time understanding what you're trying to accomplish because you state that you'd think we will see some savings, but now you say it's gonna be an increase in costs.

No, I think I'm trying to make in any startup in the starting of uh a new arrangement, there will be some increased cost.

I think that you will see down the road um you will you will achieve some efficiencies.

And has adult probation told you they want to do this?

Yes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So with that, we will go to the department of emergency management.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisors.

Mary Ellen Carroll, I'm the executive director for the Department of Emergency Management.

I come to you this morning with some good news and a challenge.

The good news is that our 911 dispatch center is meeting state answer time standard with zero advanced overtime, and this budget keeps building on that progress.

The challenge is that federal grants that the city has relied on for fund to fund emergency services for over 15 years disappeared practically overnight.

This left us with a fiscal cliff that we backfilled with the general fund to the maximum extent possible.

Thankfully, the timing leaves us much better off than two years ago.

With dispatch and our 24-7 on-call team well positioned to monitor and escalate incidents as necessary with support from emergency managers who run our planning, training, exercises, and EOC.

I'll provide a quick overview of how we carry out our core services.

Our new budget structures our department with four divisions, emergency communications, which is 911, emergency services and programs, the EMS agency, and administration and support.

Our two-year budget proposes first year almost 14 million, and the second year reduced to almost 113 million.

In both years, the majority of the funding is the department for the department is the 911 center.

Administrative costs include our department's significant technology projects and capital allocations, emergency services and program budget includes costs for emergency planning, training, and what remains of our federal grant funded programs.

And the EMS agency funds mandatory, regulatory, statutory oversight for the city's EMS system.

We have 302 positions within our department, 70% of the DM employees work in the 911 center.

Our proposed budget funds three dispatch academies over the next two years.

This also transfers seven positions and their workload for street response to DPH, and it deletes 12 positions in the first budget year, seven were filled, five are vacancies, and two more in year two.

DEM serves as the fiscal agent for the Bay Area AWASI, which is a 100% federally funded program.

The loss of this funding has caused us to greatly reduce the management team.

The remaining team will manage the existing grant awards that are winding down, and the long-term state of this management team will depend on future potential funding and our grant eligibility.

And for 15 years, federal grants have also paid for emergency planners in our emergency services division.

Since we can no longer rely on this funding in the future, we have now reallocated eight almost 900,000 to move core emergency planners onto the general fund, but this still has resulted in 4.5 FTE reduction in that division.

At DEM, we have a very low vacancy weight of 1%, and department-wide, we have less than four vacant positions.

And this is why it is very hard when we're asked to eliminate positions because we really have most of our positions filled.

The reductions for this budget include both personnel and non-personnel costs.

We already mentioned our personnel reductions uh total 14 over two years.

We also analyzed all of our non-personnel reductions and reduced everywhere we could.

This slide shows the breakdown of our management to non-management positions compared to two years ago.

We have reduced DMs management by 29%, going from 42 to 30.

And beginning in this budget year, our overall ratio department wide is now about 10% managers to 90% staff.

Just very quickly, I'll give an overview of our core services.

For 911, the state standard for calls is to meet 90% of calls within 15 seconds.

We met this standard last October for the first time since 2022, and we have met or exceeded it repeatedly since.

And how we did this is through hiring.

We have filled academies, which has resulted in enough new dispatchers to meet our standards for staffing and calls.

Mandatory overtime is down to zero, and that is not only good for the budget, it is importantly good for dispatcher well-being.

For emergency services and programs, this team is the team behind City, the city's not so emergent, not so everyday emergencies.

Includes planning, training, leading the EOC activations for planned and unplanned events.

We have average 14 EOC activations annually since 2021.

It also includes the community ambassador program and large vehicle program coordination that will continue under DEM.

And we remain responsible for managing the remaining homeland security grants previously awarded to the region.

This responsibility includes medical control, policy, event medical plans, and disaster response.

Chair Chan and committee members, in closing, I just want to present that for less than 1.5% of the general fund, San Francisco gets a 911 system answering the state standard, a team that coordinated the city's planning and response to large events and emergencies, and a department that absorbed a federal fiscal cliff, which with its core operations intact.

And this budget continues to progress that protect that progress.

I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

So we had again of the seven fill of the 12 positions that were laid off this year, seven were filled.

Of those, three are separating from the city, three have accepted alternate employment within the city, and one is remains to be decided.

The status is unclear at this point.

So do you want me to go into detail for each of those positions?

And help us also understand because we did receive a memo about transfer of function that's seeing that.

Yeah, oh street teams.

So as you are all well aware, DEM has played a pivotal role, critical role in street response, honestly going on nine years.

In the last year, the mayor's office asked us, actually, year and a half, to help rebuild those and restructure the street teams, which we did.

It has we collaboratively have decided that at this point that those teams are ready to move over into a less this is absolutely emergency 911 to a response within the Department of Public Health, which we agree with that, um, and that is those are the seven positions that went to health department.

And that is a seven separate from the 12 layoff positions.

Totally separate.

So all seven of those positions simply moved, we moved those classifications, all those people, they kept their jobs, and they have all accepted to that transfer and are we're in the middle of that transition period with DPH.

So uh, so your um staffing change has come to a total of 19, out of which seven is transferred their function from Department of Emergency Management to Department of Public Health, and the remaining of 12 out of which seven were filled, um, and five sounds like were vacant, and then the seven fill were out of that seven fill layoff, three separated from the from the city officially.

Yes, and then three um actually were reassigned to different duty to a different city department, yes, and then one.

Sorry, what happened to that, the last one?

That isn't a personal process, so it's pending.

We don't know what the disposition of that is gonna be.

Understood.

And could you walk us through our dose the 911 the set the 12 layoff or data 911 dispatcher?

No dispatcher has been laid off, no.

And and what are they?

So uh starting with I'll start with the ones that have been um reassigned.

So we had a 093 uh I'm sorry, 092, which was the only position from uh the 911 or DEC.

That person did um was a data manager and did a lot of work for all of the public safety departments, and uh we're very grateful and thankful that that person was able to move into a position within the fire department, and uh honestly, this is a great example of us working collaboratively and kind of combining resources.

So while that person reports to the fire department, we will still continue to work with them.

Um we give the fire department information, they need our data, and so this is a we feel like this is a great uh results.

Um the uh we had one oh nine or one oh nine three three, which is still the kind of TBD.

Um we had an 0932, which was uh had the fiscal director at the Bay Area UASI, and the 093, and then we had another 0931 from UASI who has taken a position in another department, we had a 2593 position that was the only position from EMSA, and that person will be transferring to the Department of Public Health.

The uh other two, we had an 09 uh 8602, which was an exempt release from division of emergency services, and another 8603, which was an exempt release from the division of emergency services.

I think that's everything.

Understood.

Um I sorry, Director Killer.

Um, and I I believe Director Carroll said this earlier, but uh just to put a finer point out of it.

Four of those seven positions were UASI funded, um, and we were not able to backfill that grant.

Three of them were were general fund or another grant source.

So just to be clear, the just to underscore which I said, the we are the fiscal agent for the urban area security initiative, and that is a 100% federally funded uh division.

It is sort of a quasi, it reports both to an approval authority, which has members um from the counties, and and to us as city employees.

The UASI funding for the last year has not been released anywhere in the country, blue or red.

So um, I'm so sorry.

What is WASI?

Urban Area Security Initiative, we call it UASI.

So they area UASI.

It is a it's a regional um homeland security program that is uh focused on urban areas, so usually it is a you know the New York metropolitan area, DC, so it's usually not a separate city.

That funding, as you can see.

Do you want to pull up that slide?

And by the way, I'm not too sure we have that on the record.

Your presentation.

Maybe it just like I couldn't find it on the a.

Nice.

Thank you.

I was like, wait, where is it?

So that as you can see, we depend, we have traditionally this this has been a very consistent program for 15 years.

Last year we went from 30, I don't have it in front of me, over 30 37 million dollars to $4 million for that for that division.

We also get some of that money comes to us to do our staffing.

We use some money, so so San Francisco is a core city.

We get some of that money passed on to us.

We have used that some of that money traditionally on staff salaries, and so that is part of the reason we've been hit so hard on this within division of emergency services.

We therefore took that um so for division of emergency services, we were able to internally, we did not get get additional funding from the general fund, but we were able to reorganize, prioritize about $900,000 to maximize the um ability to keep people on.

But we cannot do that for UASI.

UASI is not a city uh program, it is a regional program.

There isn't a there's no there's not one penny of general fund that funds that regional homeland security grant.

So it has been horrible.

We went from 25 people in the last year to seven core staff there.

This has been a process over the last year and a half with that staff, and I can tell you that you know, I think over the last year you're only seeing what's happening in this budget, but we have had, you know, many people saw the writing on the wall and looked for other jobs and have found other employment over the last year, but um you know, we're down to a very key and small core staff.

Now, if the funding becomes available, and if we are eligible for it, meaning within this administration, thank we are so grateful for our city attorney David Chu and his team because they have been really successful in helping um other programs move forward and letting funding come through to us.

But um, I think most people don't understand how much we have depended on that federal funding for 15 years.

Understood.

Um thank you uh for walking us through that details.

We just wanted to be on the record about those.

Um you're not gonna like my next question.

Um it's really about the siren.

Yeah, and could you walk us through?

I love the siren question.

I walk us through the the sort of thinking in your budget about what's next for the siren.

So the SIREN system is owned by the Department of Technology and operated by DEM.

It has been offline since 2019, as most people are available because of security vulnerability, um, and some other issues.

So we have been working and have done homework with DT over the last few years.

We did a full request for information, which we completed in late 2024.

We looked at restoring all, we we looked at restoring 35 sites uh along the coast because there's about 112 sites total.

So we looked at two options 35 sites uh that at the time in 2024 was estimated to be about 8.5 million of one-time funding plus about a million dollars per year ongoing to maintain those, and then for the full network would be about 21 million plus roughly 3 million dollars a year for for ongoing the timeline at that time to execute and fully you know um retrofit and build that system would be a three to six-year timeline.

So these are capital-scale numbers, and uh the you know, the right venue to take those is the planning committee and the ECR bond or the ECER bond programming, which is within that.

Um we have at various times over the years asked for funding, and we have not that funding has not been prioritized.

If the city funds restoration, we would recommend that it would be a phased uh start with focusing on the tsunami inundation zones along the coast, which we feel is most vulnerable and would have the best use of those sun sirens.

But in the meantime, and this is very important, we are still protected outdoors.

Um we have alert SF, we have wireless alerts to every phone.

We have uh NOAA radios, we have public safety vehicles with PA systems, and this plan has been put to the test and was very successful during the December 2024 tsunami warning.

I've been on the record to say that I believe that tsunami the sirens are a redundancy.

If the mayor's office, the board, the capital uh improvement plan chooses to move forward with them, that's that is something I would support.

However, we have a long list of priorities that have not been always supported, including significant work at the 911 center on Turk Street.

We're thankful that the um capital planning committee over the years has been incrementally incrementally allowing us to do the most urgent emergent work that needs to be to be had.

The sirens were built in the 50s for a cold war environment, and a lot has changed since then.

I I understand that there's concern and and people would people seem to feel like they would be much safer with them.

I would support them coming back, but this is where we are now, and I'm very confident in the plans that we have and the notifications that we already do have.

I I'm gonna finish this thought and I'm gonna call on Zoya Sauter, who also has uh additional comments or any questions.

I I think that what I am trying to articulate at this moment is that I don't think I ever insisting that we must have the exist the current system.

What I have been asking for is that we should have a um redundancy system.

It doesn't have to be the current of what we have, but we must have a redundant redundancy in our emergency alert system.

What I have found and learned um deeply last December when there is a PG and ye blackout city-wide um personal experience is that um without battery to my phone, without Wi-Fi, that I have no way to understand and and know what's actually going on.

Uh, and and I don't know what other source of, and I also realized I didn't have a radio, and which I need one, a battery radio.

Supervisor, yes.

Um, totally, and even a generator.

And then I also, you know, the kicker is also Director Carroll, is that like I didn't even charge my satellite phone that I'm supposed to be carrying, so that was out of battery too.

And I didn't have a backup battery for that.

So all of which is to say that as someone as me that should be really well prepared and actually have access to multiple devices, that is I believe beyond your everyday person.

Um it brings attention to me that um we have to do we have to do better, um, and that to fake our redundancy system that is not reliable on Wi-Fi technology and battery, or you know, uh electricity that plugs in, but maybe alternative with generator and batteries.

So again, I am simply asking for a redundancy system, not necessarily the existing tsunami siren system.

Because I understand, I think you have kind of draw it in my head a couple years ago and say this is not good enough.

It's an old system.

Um I think it's war in a conversation uh with the bond that just passed, 535 million worse of it to kind of see like what other their ways to look to the future uh with department of Technology and what our options.

And so with that, so visor solder.

Thank you.

And the response time.

I'm sorry, I I didn't I didn't understand what you just said.

A question about the performance scorecard on the last slide.

Oh, the response time chart.

You know, I see the goal being 90%, and we're each year just a tick below that.

What would it take to reach that 90%?

And this is for those not looking at it, this is the uh ambulance response to a call within 10 minutes of dispatch.

And the goal being 90%, and you know, it's not we're not too far off, but what would it take to get to 90% compared to where we are today?

Um so there's not one easy answer to that.

One of the things that um, and I and I would encourage you to ask the fire chief because he probably has his opinion about that also as the operator, but um, you know, one of the things that EMS has to do is, you know, we regulate the system, and when um when we have any issues with we monitor diversion from hospitals, what we call APOT time, which is basically the time that people are, you know, that ambulance take to kind of turn over.

Um we also have a much more complex um population of people that we are serving, and so to answer your question, we are we are working very closely all the time on all of those things.

Um we work incredibly closely with uh fire with our providers, which is the uh fire department provides about 80 80% of the response, and then we have privates with 20.

We work with them closely.

We're working with the hospitals practically on a weekly basis to help them and help them understand what will what they need from us to be able to turn over and same with them.

So, you know, I think that we are well on our way to get there.

We have seen from our efforts a lot of improvements in these very a lot of the other um metrics that lead up to that ultimate time response time, um, and so we just have to continue on on those paths.

But if there's one thing you could have or do to improve it, what would that be?

Um, you know, there really isn't one thing that I would say.

I think that we need to um I think one of that we need to consider a system-wide approach to the EMS system.

I would love to not see the same people being picked up on EMS.

Like we need to read reducing some of our calls would be excellent.

We're seeing EMS calls increase year over year, and so we really need to look at ways in which and creative solutions to make sure that people who should not be going to an emergency room are diverted to other uh more appropriate um locations.

And we're we're doing a good job.

We have a lot, you know, we have DPH has done um is put has created over the last few years other places that people can go.

811.

We've got um even the reset center serves for that to a certain degree.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

Um we'll probably have more questions, um, but not at the moment.

Okay, and we appreciate it, and thank you so much for working with our budget and legislative analyst.

Thank you, we appreciate you.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And so with that, we're gonna go to the juvenile probation department.

Are we loading or is it coming up?

Which way are we handling it?

We're loading.

Thank you.

Okay.

Shall I begin?

Please.

Thank you.

Good morning, everybody.

I wanted to give a huge thank you to the folks at JPD who prepared the budget.

I want to thank the MBO for their partnership and the BLA for what I'm sure will be their forthcoming partnership as we go through the recommendations.

And of course, our staff and our partners in the work.

Next slide.

JPD's many core operational services are dictated by state and federal law.

In the juvenile system, probation actually works with young people from that point of arrest all the way through their time in the justice system and often beyond into extended foster care.

And almost 40% of our caseload is over 18 at this point.

Traditionally, you can think of us as managing court functions, supervising young people and community, operating a 24-7 detention facility, and again those foster care responsibilities.

But also in 2020, Governor Newsom signed historic and important legislation that closed California's youth prison system and transferred those duties to probation at the county level.

This reform is called DJJ realignment, and it means we are now essentially also state youth prison and parole for young people, but in San Francisco style.

These strategies are built on extensive city planning processes, going back to the closed juvenile hall work group, and they are very collaborative in orientation.

We update our strategies annually to reflect new mandates to incorporate data and trends and to incorporate staff feedback and stakeholder input, including from our youth and families.

We do not operate discretionary programs at this point.

None of what we do is discretionary.

Over the last five years, the juvenile probation department has decreased general fund sources 8%.

We have decreased our workforce 27%, and we've reduced case carrying probation officers in particular, 48%, which has now led to a 47% increase in their caseload sizes.

At the same time, we've absorbed that DJJ realignment mandate that I mentioned without commensurate funding.

So at this point, our analysis of current resources combined with our evolving mandates and some cost drivers has made it clear that we downsize too far, and we need to be readjusting to be right-sized and right resourced.

And a really big part of that is because of DJJ realignment.

So I'm going to talk briefly about it.

This slide underscores the fiscal impact of absorbing DJJ realignment mandates.

The brown and orange slices show how much we spend on those functions, again, essentially serving as long-term facility, replacing state youth prisons and that kind of parole for youth function.

DJJ realignment costs now take up 21% of our budget, with the state providing 3.5 million and the department allocating another 7.4 million from our existing budget to do that relatively new required work.

Without that, we would be before you giving back general reasons why DJJ realignment has had such a big impact.

And we're talking fiscally today, but also functionally and on the actual lives of young people in San Francisco.

Youth and young adults with long-term custodial commitments.

You can think of them as the equivalent of sentences in the adult system, and they can be up for up to seven years in our facility.

Those commitments and serving those young people require comprehensive rehabilitative programming, which we've had to create in our facility in separate units from the young people who are with us in detention status.

Additionally, the court has committed more youth than anticipated into these long-term secure stays, significantly more young people than the county used to send to DJJ when it was open.

And additionally, effective community reentry for these young people, the young people who've committed the most serious harm and need the most support.

It is intensely intensive and it is costly, particularly for housing.

In addition to significant significantly increased caseloads that I mentioned before, our probation officers have some other significant demands right now.

There are intensive new foster care mandates, new laws that took effect January 1st, and a steady increase in youth who've been court ordered into out-of-home placement, which is a very labor-intensive part of our work focused on young people and families with the most complex needs.

And I expect and appreciate that our probation officers are performing these increased responsibilities as we're having them implement a variety of evidence-based practices designed to improve youth outcomes, better support our families, and reduce recidivism.

Services by community-based organizations comprise essential components of San Francisco's juvenile justice system.

They are not extra, they are core to how we do our work.

Every youth and family going through our system is now connected to a community organization as soon as possible after arrest.

And CBOs provide an array of services in the juvenile justice center.

The majority of those services are funded through a 3.5 million annual work order from probation to DCYF, and that funding is stable in the budget.

However, we also have three critical programs that we've implemented in collaboration with community partners for which funding is set to expire this fiscal year, and they are listed here.

Again, they are core to our approach as a juvenile justice system, and they are heavily utilized.

Next slide.

All this to say our focus at this time is on prevent as on preservation and strengthening outcomes.

So in year one, our proposed budget includes some additions, funding to replace the expiring funds that I mentioned for critical system components with our community partners, two probation officers to address increased caseloads and mandates, one position substitution to accommodate the increasingly complex and very consequential work of DJJ realignment, a nutrition adjustment that will enable us to reduce overtime in the juvenile justice center with both financial and human impacts, and then capital and equipment funding to support critical replacement and repairs in our 76-year-old building and other parts of our campus.

And then in year two.

Are you on year two?

On year two, the budget includes two additional items, one of which is career and technical education for long-term youth in our facility.

Again, it's not a discretionary program.

This is a statutory requirement.

This slide lists the four positions that we proposed for elimination along the way through the budget process.

And then this slide shows our proposed org chart, including manager to staff ratio, vacant and new positions, and our one proposed substitution.

And then finally, this slide provides additional information requested by Chair Chan.

Thank you.

I'm happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

We appreciate all the work that you've been doing.

As you have indicated, they are actually mandatory.

There's nothing that within your budget now and your function and operation are discretionary, so we appreciate that.

Thank you so much for your work.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Thank you, Director Miller.

Just out of curiosity, what's the gap between what you actually receive from the state versus what you actually need from the state from the closure wide?

Right, it's a great question.

So what we receive from the state is three and a half million, and then what we spend is another 7.4 million.

So we get about a third from the state of what it actually costs us to do the work.

You know, we often joke that the state never realigns functions to the counties at a fiscal loss to itself.

And I think this is an example of where we see it, but also in defense of the state.

I think that it's always hard to understand that it's just gonna cost a lot more when you spread functions across counties.

Um and I also think it's important that I want to say to the to the body that uh we take the work really seriously, and I think it is a really historic important change.

I think it is important that we close those state facilities, but I also think we need to be realistic about what it costs to do the work well and in a way that's worthy of the young people and the community.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And uh with that, we will go to um adult probation.

Good job.

As we get set up, I would just say um good afternoon, budget chair Chan, Supervisors Walton Sauder, and Supervisor Chin.

My name is Christelle Tulach.

I'm the chief of the adult probation department, and thank you very much for the opportunity today to share the story and strategic vision of our department on behalf of the superior court for the city and county of San Francisco.

We extend gratitude to the mayor's office and to mayor Lurie and his staff for all the guidance and support during this process.

Our assistant chief is Jeremy Valverdi.

Joining me today is our policy and ledge director, Alia Brown Hoffmeister, and our deputy director, Tarz Madison.

I'm so honored to represent all of the dedicated staff that make up our small but mighty adult probation team.

Next slide.

Our mission is clear, and it's rooted in equity and service.

Every action we take is driven by the belief that all people deserve the chance to thrive.

Next slide.

Our core services include a mandated investigations and supervision functions.

Our investigators provide sentencing and custody recommendations to the court that are provided to the DA and defense that range from community supervision to state prison.

Our reports follow the life of the person and are used by CDCR for classification and programming purposes.

We are mandated and incentivized to keep people in the community.

We receive funding related to how many individuals we are successfully able to remain out of jail and state prison.

Our supervision practices are guided by state mandates and evidence-based principles.

Next slide.

And a huge feature of our housing programs is that for a long time, San Francisco was a treatment desert essentially, and probation was one of the only places where you could be housed in a sober living transitional program.

We helped 319 individuals be prepared and secured jobs.

Our task is our one-stop hub creating justice involved individuals to connecting justice involved individuals to services with dignity and care.

We served 3,000, close to 3,000 unique individuals that are currently informally justice involved this past year, and our recidivism rate for the three different populations that we serve is below the state's average.

Next slide.

And this is our organizational structure.

It features the proposed restorative and prevention services division.

Next slide.

Our priorities and incentives include a focus on technology and two new programs, pretrial services, and violence reduction.

And now I'll turn this over to our deputy director, Tars Madison.

Good morning, everyone.

Tower Smadison, Deputy Director for the San Francisco Adult Probation Department.

And so our proposed fiscal year 26-27 budget is $72 million of $72.6 million.

Our revenues are comprised primarily of general fund, and then our second largest general revenue source would be our state funding, primarily AB 109 realignment funding.

Next slide.

So on the expenditure side, our there's an increase of about 11 million dollars in our budget, and that increase is primarily due to new programs.

But overall, for our expenditures, similar to most departments, salaries and fringes will be our largest expenditure.

But then our second largest expenditure will be our housing and supportive services.

That would be about 30%, and that includes our city grants and programmatic projects, and that's reflecting exactly what the chief had just stated a second ago.

A lot of our work that we do, we actually lean very heavily on the housing and supportive services and providing services to our clients.

Next slide, please.

So although our budget is increasing, and it's increasing due to those new programs.

If you look at just our existing programs, and our existing budget, our budget is actually remaining flat.

Um in some of our housing and supportive services funding, and we found a way to kind of work and look at savings and also look at spending to make sure that we don't cut into service provision.

Excluding the new programs that I'll go over in a second, our actual budget is at 62 million dollars, and our actual FTE actually goes down.

Next slide, please.

So here our expenditures are by core service services, and of course, we focus on our mandated supervision and investigations, which is about 42% of our budget, and then the remaining 58% all supports those things and which are also core services.

And so we include our budgeting for housing supportive services, our IT, procurement, research, and HR.

In addition, and administration that includes a lot of department-wide services, all of our work orders, rent, materials and supplies, etc.

So to the new programs in the budget.

These are our two programs.

The first is the pretrial program, and that amount is about 7.4 million dollars in the first year, which is 35 FTE, and then about 8.5 in the second year, and that's annualized positions, and then the second program, our balance reduction program, is about $2 million with three FTE, and that remains about two million and three over both years.

And so I'll talk about our pretrial services vision, which is to modernize and be service forward to support the OR diversion and OR population that requires additional support in the community.

Next slide.

The four pillars of our program include automating the PSA to provide faster, consistent reports to the court.

Our pretrial case management system features remote check-ins, scale supervision by risk, to ensure the least restrictive plan that includes reduced supervision over time.

Our CASC already already supports many pretrial clients and will continue to be the source for housing, behavioral health, and case management.

And then finally, our program development and continuous improvement that includes a PSA validation study for San Francisco.

Next slide.

And the plan includes the development of the automated PSA and workflows, moving into the second phase where we will test the PSA, develop this case management system, and onboard new staff.

The positions are all city positions that offer career mobility with the city and county in San Francisco's family, and every position will be publicly advertised.

The third phase is finalizing our workflows with the court and sheriff and finally our pre-go live activities that include notification to clients, and we project going live January 2027.

Next slide.

We'll partner with community organizations, community leaders, and violence interrupters to prevent violence, respond to crisis, support victims, and connect high need individuals to services that promote long-term community safety.

We are currently developing an MOU and multi-department RFP to solicit interest in this initiative that will be released within the next two months.

Next slide.

Now the critical elements of the transition is coordinating and meeting cadence with our partners and vendors.

We'll focus on research and quality assurance to ensure continuous quality improvement.

And we will have direct oversight by the superior court and the city and county of San Francisco fiscal and administrative codes and regulations as it relates to over site.

Next slide.

Next slide.

This is our administrative divisions.

Next slide.

So our current position details reflect that we have 131 positions.

Next slide.

This does not reflect the proposed new programs.

And if you have any questions, I'm available.

Thank you.

Just trying to understand where is the pretrial uses summary like it's included here.

Is it in the my apologies?

I'm looking at your line item, the this book, green book right here.

Um could you show, could you indicate to me where is the where is it's the line item, or is it just kind of part of the personnel?

Is the city grant program or is it the oh you're referring to the overall budget?

No, it's a part of the the actual budget.

So if you could we go to the slide, please, Aaliyah, the one that you that one.

That shows that.

So it's reflected in our salaries and non-personnel and non-personnel, and also on materials and supplies.

I see, and then so you are now inclusive of the pre-trial.

So what you're saying is for your total of your budget, and in this case, salaries, fringe, and non-personnel services, or I should say, yeah, and added together, it's additional of for the 2627 is 7.4 million, and then for 27, 28 is 8.5 million roughly, and both collectively together is really to cover the pretrial transition in your program.

And um, but it's not going to have that the transition doesn't happen, or at least we're not anticipating that it's gonna happen until should it happen, will be second half of the of the fiscal year, isn't it?

I'll answer, yeah.

We so but we need to hire and prepare the program before we actually go live.

So hiring, training, testing our model, um, working with our vendors, uh testing the new case management system, all of that needs some time, and so based on our model and our plan, we project that we would be prepared to go live January 27.

And so this is at the same time where spending because we just did that too, um, for this body to approve a three-year contract for pretrial with the sheriff, and which then also I believe um, at least in agreement that we will be budgeted for one or we approve the contract, and hoping that um, and that's a question also for the sheriffs to see how much was actually funded for that contract.

Um, maybe Director Kittler can help us answer that questions for the sheriff department, because I'm trying to understand if the contract that we approve was fully funded, because in this case, we just approve a three, we approve three years contract with the understanding that we're putting the we're only allowing the spending of one year, putting remaining of the two years on reserve, and what we understand it to be is that it's roughly about seven million dollars per year for that contract, it's about 21 million dollars of that contract, which means that we're anticipating the sheriff's department at least have roughly about seven million dollars for the fiscal years 26-27.

Meanwhile, the adult probation is also coming in at additional 7.4 million dollars for your department um for the same purpose.

So I'm just trying to understand exactly how is this transition gonna work, where everybody seems to have well, in my opinion, at least $3.5 million for duplicated purpose of spending.

Sure.

Um the court has instructed my department to develop a pretrial program, and that's what we've done.

Um is my understanding that um as soon as we're ready to go live, the court will start directing that population to us between today and the time that we're prepared.

The program still needs to move.

And so I expect that funding is for that purpose.

How me understand though?

Is it the court order or is it just the court recommendation?

Per the penal code, it's the court that determines where this population is managed.

And so as it sits today, um, we are direct report to the court, and the court sends work to the adult probation department every single day.

Not one day does a court ask, are you staffed to receive this abundance of work?

We completed more than 4,000 reports as ordered to us by the court, and not one time in those 4,000 orders that the court asked if I had the proper staffing because we're mandated to do that work.

So today the court could send that entire population to us.

They're not doing that because they don't want to overload the department, but it is the case that per the penal code, it's the court that determines where probation or pretrial goes.

And does the court also dictate the model of operation for pretrial?

The court, the courts can.

Some of this is mandated, for instance, using a risk assessment tool, and then in the penal code, just the overall structure of when someone someone's released into the community, the expectation, that really is all the oversight of the superior court.

So if I build a program that the superior court is not in agreement with, they could absolutely say we are well, we want the program to look a certain way.

But the program that we developed there in agreement with, and it's a program that we intend to implement.

Um, how is it that we can actually understand that existing pretrial um model will be anything different than what you're gonna develop?

I'm sorry, I'm not following the question.

Because I can't speak on behalf of the current current model.

You cannot speak.

I mean, I am trying to I don't represent the current pretrial population, I can only speak to.

And and but how is it that how is it then you will be operating different than the existing pretrial program?

I understand.

I guess what I will represent to you is the goal of my department is to develop a program that we know will have a direct positive impact on individuals who are oftentimes having to report to multiple agencies, given plans to follow, and then just put in the community to try and figure out how to navigate that.

And that's not fair to the person.

In our model, we recognize that a lot of this population comes to us every day at our cask.

So this is an opportunity to streamline that, give continuity to that person should they, as they go through the court process, end up formally um with us and still benefit for the robust portfolio of supports and services that we provide.

As I said, we supported 3,000 unique individuals last year, not all of them were supervised.

Like people come to the CAS because they know it's a place where you will get connected to the supports and services that you need, and it's a model that we um have been working on for almost 15 years now, and so it has a reputation of being a safe place.

Most people who go there don't even recognize that it is an adult probation facility.

And so we're leaning into our experience with this population, and I have all confidence that we will be impactful in a good way for San Francisco and to the clients who are having to navigate the criminal justice system.

Thank you.

Supervisor Chen.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Chair Chairon.

Um, thank you, uh Chief Tula for your presentation.

Um help me understand, because from my understanding is the adult probation currently also supervise individuals in the pretrial phases.

Do you have any data or impact?

That we currently supervise pretrial.

We do not currently supervise pretrial.

Okay, thank you for that clarification.

I I believe if if I may um clarify the question, I believe you're referencing the fact that pretrial population comes to our cast for supports and services, but they are not being supervised or monitored by us, they are just benefiting from the resources that we have.

Got it, thank you.

And can you go back to the slide where it has the initiative where it outlies 30 about roughly about 35 FTE for for the new the program that it's about to launch?

Um so my understanding from that slide is that the food staffing plan for the new program, the pretrial services division, it's about 35 FTE for 25-26.

So I should mic on?

Yeah.

Right.

So that's this including staff working on all holidays.

Because I, from my understanding, the current pretrial, uh date 24-7, 365, is the current proposed uh model that in your staffing plan is also including those expenses.

Correct, yes.

Pre-trial models are pretty much uh 24-7 operations, largely because of the PSA.

And our model utilizing technology and modernizing this process will help to ease the the burden of staff to have that level of response.

So the current budget of 5.9 million dollars for 26, 27 fiscal year, also including holiday pay, overtime pay, that it's all budgeted in.

Right, because it will be their um regular schedules.

And also help me understand from the operation perspective, what will be new to your initiative that is offered that is not currently offered under the current structures.

And we understand that pre-trial uh San Francisco pre-trial is already addressing some of your concerns about uh the signatures and that the staffing is in the courtroom to file judicial questions and partially funded also by you.

So help me understand you know what will be new to your your initiative.

So again, my uh our department was asked to develop a program, and developing programs is something that we're really good at.

We we have a great record, and we have helped tons of people uh really stabilize their lives.

So we leaned into what we already do, and with a perspective of just model uh modeling what we've built and tailor it to this population that we already know that we're already supporting, and so uh we did not look at the current pretrial program and look for deficiencies or criticize but that's not our intention or interest.

What we would what was put before us was to build a program, and so we build a program.

This is not rocket science for adult probation or adult probation, we are a court function.

This is a court function.

Um we did not lobby for this, but we understand why it makes sense.

It creates a value add for San Francisco because right now this work sits outside of San Francisco.

Bringing this work into the city function means that it will give more visibility to all of the justice partners, including the public defender's office.

Um it's an opportunity to reduce redundancies.

Um for instance, uh if if a person incurs a new arrest, pretrial is entering and doing information on that person outside of the city.

The city's also doing it internally, and so now streamlining all of this really will have the value add of modernizing actually utilizing technology.

Um as the courts described to us, they receive paper PSAs with greens, like one court history could be 80 to 90 pages of court history, and that's what the court will receive with the expectation to make a decision with within a certain short time frame.

We have technology that could streamline that for the court, and that's what we intend to do.

So I can't say we're I I'm not going to make comparisons to a program that I don't have um any purview to, but I can tell you with confidence what adult probation could do.

Thank you.

And another question, I pretrial is also funded by state grants, and I know they are also cutting the funding.

So how would that impact your future request to general fund from the city?

I'm sorry, I missed the the uh the state is also cutting pretrial funding.

So how would that impact your future requests of the city general fund?

Right.

Um, so we did uh create the budget, um, and and this is a budget that we have confidence that will help us to uh maintain a high level level standard um in this program, and then we're also taking advantage of the fact that we have so much in place already that is prime to absorb this.

So it's a blending of what already exists in the city already helps us to fund some of what we do.

We we fund the CASC and um our programs and services as you saw in our budget at a really high level, and some of that is state money and through SB 678, because as I described, we're incentivized by the state to keep people in the community out of county jail in the prison.

And at the rate we're able to maintain our population in the community, the state gives us incentives, and we use that funding to help support our cask and all of our housing and program services.

So can I interpret that uh the future asked for uh the city general fund will be minimal?

As oh, sorry.

Sorry.

Um so am I understanding that because the program then will deliver other results?

So the rate of return is that we are cutting pretrial state grant, but we are getting more from the state government for other programs.

So then that will even it out.

So then it will minim.

So the request for City General Fund, then it will not be a big ass in the future years.

I I I can't say that.

I would say that based on what we have right now, um, is the budget that we presented um through fiscal year 2028, and we recognize that this year is going to be the test year for us when we go live.

Part of the reason we want to do a validation study on the PSA is because one hasn't been done for San Francisco, and so we look forward to to understand what the results of that will yield for San Francisco.

Um, as I described, the readings of paper that um that the court gets right now, that could be a cost savings uh within the first year just on paper alone, including saving saving some trees, but you know, right now everything that we have put forward is based on what we know and against what it is we do currently as it relates to supports services and the um products that we produce for the court today.

So I'm a little confused, uh, but if you could help me understand that uh I just heard from the uh the Supreme Court saying that this program will be fund noting, it will cost more uh in in that fund and then will be cost-saving in later years, and now we're saying and now that I'm hearing you saying that this is cost-saving even in in the beginning.

Am I correct?

Am I hearing the discrepancies correct?

What I represented was the budget that we put forward is a budget that we recognize to be what we need in order to launch the program as time goes on.

Um there is a potential for the budget to um that the true value add and return on investment will be greater understood because we will have at least a year of managing the program researching the program and continuously um improving the model, and so based on all the facts and evidence we have at this moment, that's where we stand.

So may I then say the rate of return compared to the current pre-trial, we don't know yet.

We don't know whether, you know, moving it to adult probation, the rate of return will be higher, and and obviously from like um what I mean just heard from Chair Chan, it's the duplicate us from the sheriff department and also adult probation for the contract of 7.4 million dollars.

It it's just a little confused to me.

And and how this is going to work out in the next six months, and I would appreciate for more charity too in the future.

Director Kitler.

And I'm gonna have to go to Supervisor Walton and Supervisor Sauter.

Absolutely.

Um I will I will make some attempts at my understanding of how this could play out.

Um so certainly uh so there is first of all in year one, there is absolutely an additional duplicative cost in um in the budget because we wanted to make sure that there was redundancy as we transition from one system to the other.

We assumed the cost of the contract for pretrial services at the sheriff for six months while we stand up a new program at adult probation per the court's request or mandate mandate.

Um and so there is a duplicative cost in year one, and it is costing more money for that transition reason.

Secondly, um, because of the way, and this is like not to the good of our system, but it is a fact.

Because of the way we budget CBO contracts versus in-house staffing, we do assume uh additional ongoing wage increases um in the in our in-house staff, which is different from how we think about the long-term increased costs of CBOs, and so on in the budget, the costs accrue faster when we have in-house work.

That is a policy decision on whether we should be contracting out work or not.

So we'll like put that to the side.

I belie not to speak for the courts, but my understanding of what I think he was talking about is um exactly what you guys were just discussing.

The return on investment of whether they believe, and I would like I do not have the data to to discuss the veracity of this at all, and I think that this is what a trial period would help us work through.

But I think the um the proposal is that if they had the data they were looking for, which they believe they can get from adult probation, that we would reduce costs, particularly in how we um in in how people show up at the courts, how people show up in the jails, what the cost of incarceration is.

I don't think the proposal is necessarily that the staffing cost would necessarily come down at adult probation, but that at a system level we would be spending less on incarceration and our court system would be working differently and hopefully more efficiently.

Um again, that is like that is what we need to bear out in this policy discussion.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, Chair Channel.

Most of my questions were answered, but one of the things I am struggling with is as we talk about the transition.

Does the department or even for that matter, any city department have a track record of hiring on time?

I I can't speak to that.

I could speak to your department.

I right, and I I will um we have um currently we have five uh new staff that have been made offers and will all be on board um starting July 6th through July 22nd.

Um at the other side of this, we're prime to start advertising more positions and getting them going.

It's a high priority for our department.

Um, right now, when we uh the our primary focus is getting to a stage of testing the technology as it relates to automation and the five staff that are coming on, that is going to be what they're doing.

And so, um, through that testing, it's going to give us um true um information as to the other pieces of the programs development and how it all comes together.

And so right now the staffing we're on we're on staffing target, and uh again, as soon as the this phase is done, we'll be doing a wider um search for um new staff to to take on.

So you typically hire this amount of people in that amount of time.

Do we well we're very small department?

It's not often that we get opportunities to hire staff.

So um we uh as I said, we're primed to start announcing the positions as soon as we have the full support and confidence that we're going, we're moving in this direction.

Let me ask differently.

You typically hire 35 people in the six-month time period in adult probation department?

I'm sorry, we typically hire.

You typically hire 35 people within a six-month time period and adult probation department.

We've never been in a position to be able to hire um 35 people.

Uh and so, but as I said, we're we're ready to start moving forward.

Um as we're testing the program, we're also going to be staffing accordingly, and so um as we're seeing the different pieces of what our vision is coming together, we'll be focusing on those positions, and then continuing the process.

Is it a possibility come January 2027?

All 44 staff are not here in house in our cast.

That's always uh possibility.

But if as we stand right now, we feel confident that we will have enough staffing um to meet meet our goal.

At the same time, we're not offering magic here.

If we're not ready, we're we will say that.

We're not we're not trying to create or do anything that we're not positioned or confident that we're gonna be able to do.

When would you determine what will be your timeline to determine that you weren't ready?

Um so that's part of the phases that we developed the four phases, and so the four phases are ongoing and continuous.

And so as we're going through each phase, that's going to give us um uh get us closer to our timeline.

And so, based on where we are today, because we this is not our first go live uh timeline that we've had since this conversation has started.

But based on where we are today, it's January.

That's your first timeline, but from what you just did it, you've never had to bring on this amount of personnel and that amount of time.

Um 35 um staff.

What I can say, we have hired groups of 15 sworn deputy probation officers.

And when you're hiring sworn staff, they have to go through an extensive background process, it's extensive.

We have hired 15 people in less than six months that are sworn.

All of this staff, none of the staff are sworn.

These are all non-sworn positions, and so if I compare it to what we have to go through with our sworn staff versus this staff, the staff is a walk in the park because it's really difficult to get sworn staff through the background process.

And then so you don't have any concerns about being able to staff up.

I would never say I have no concerns, I always have concerns.

Um, but you know, as this plan, I but I have the the what we put forward is what we have confidence to do.

And then the technology, this is something that the department is familiar with.

This is something that a lot of departments are familiar with.

Um this is uh in being in San Francisco, um, I often get uh invited to speak on panels and such as it relates to technology and probation, because everyone knows that um in San Francisco, and they're always really surprised to learn how um in our overall criminal justice system as it relates to technology, how we're we're not necessarily ahead of where most counties are, and so this automation process is is not is not new, it's something we uncovered.

So when the court came to me and said that they wanted us to develop this program, we didn't lobby for it.

It wasn't on my report outs because you I report out to the court twice a month.

Um they have direct oversight for me, and I think that's one of the reasons why they want to pull this under them because if I don't perform to their liking, there's no more me.

And I and I want to be here.

So um we um looked at pro uh probation departments because primarily this is a probation function across the country, you'll find this function in probation in California the same for for years.

Um there's been probation departments that have managed pretrial for over 25 years in our in our Bay Area counties, especially.

And so our approach was to uh look at our neighbors, um, look at the National Association for Pretrial, which is NAPSA, um, talk to vendors.

We we did like a literature review to see, okay, what is uh a new modern pre-trial system?

And what we found is this automation actually um Alamina County received an innovation award because they developed a way to automate the PSA.

It in automation they do in like 15 minutes compared to what happens today, and so just happened to be our research uh director was a part of that team in Alameda.

And so that really just made it easy for us to um turn to Alameda and get support from them and moving forward with this process.

Um the county committed IT staff, um, probation, the court, um, they've all been resources for us as we've worked towards this model.

And so even with the infrastructure that exists in San Francisco today, we don't compare to theirs, and so um we're working diligently um within the city system with justice and with the courts to um get to a model that will automate based on San Francisco.

Sorry for the long response.

Yeah, yeah.

So because I think my question is are we currently using that technology?

No, and that's the that's what we'll be doing.

Um we have we have a vendor who's building a product for us as we speak.

As soon as they're done with that product, we will start testing with those five staff that I described that uh will all be here starting July 6th through July 22nd.

Thank you.

Absolutely.

Supervisor Soder.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, we're hearing from the sheriff's department about concerns uh that shifting to this model, the traditional government model might result in fewer partnerships and resources, specifically a lack of connections to housing resources, treatment providers, medical enrollment, assistance, and peer support services, uh, the interventions that are meant to stabilize individuals while their cases are pending.

Um will you be able to offer all of those particular services outlined?

And that's what we do on SMALLINE because that's describing the work of probation.

All of that work is mandated work for probation where um in the penal code um is probation is mandated to utilize evidence-based practices in order to keep people out of custody, and so this is why we have this huge portfolio of supports and services and housing and treatment um and our cask to meet that.

So all of those things are currently being met and exceeded at adult probation, and we'll just continue that um continue in that direction.

You'd be able to offer all of those by the January start date, you think?

We do it right now.

The pretrial clients come to our cask right now to get connected in services, and just up to a couple of weeks ago, pretrial will also be at uh our cask on Wednesdays, and so we that I I have all confidence that we can meet.

Good.

I don't uh mean to I don't diminish your work.

I do I just have concerns about this proposed change, right?

I mean, um it seems like something that's been asked of you, and and you know, to your credit, you're uh trying to sort it out the best you can.

I I just it's a question of if we have confidence in this proposed transition or not.

Um, and and you know, to Supervisor Walton's line of questioning, just the the hiring itself, it gives me tremendous pause.

I mean, on the one hand, I love to see the ambition of trying to hire quickly.

On the other hand, you know, considering that you you've never done anything like this before, um, considering that this would represent in terms of employees represent 20-25% increase almost overnight of your department.

I mean, that's that's a significant strain on you.

Um, and you know, I don't know if we want to ask that of you.

I think you know, for me, it seems like we have two competing proposals here, and we're kind of left to sort out uh both of them.

Um, but I think the question is do we have a compelling reason to change?

Uh, and there's a lot of back and forth, and and maybe some he said she said on this for me.

Uh I need to see the numbers, I need to see that argument, um, and I'm I'm yet to be convinced of that.

Um, maybe that changes, but I just wanted to share that to let you know uh where I am.

And again, um, you know, for a transition of this um magnitude, I think there needs to be a lot more details about how we actually get there laid out between now and January, and I just don't see that right now.

And so we'll be happy to present further details of our plan as it relates to housing the staff, all of the staff will be housed at our community assessment services center.

We have um the room, and their workstations are being um established as we speak, and uh on boarding the the staffing is not going to be from one day to the next, it will be happening over the course of the next six months.

Um, as I said, the first uh staff will start coming uh July 6th, and so um that along with we're growing the the program as our testing and develop it development matches.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, I wanted to ask about um from the court's requests, um, they're they have identified that the most significant performance improvement that they're looking for over the um privatized system that we have right now with the pretrial diversion project.

What they're looking to get is um improvements in performance for independently verified, publicly verified, publicly evaluated, and effectively managed um pretrial services.

Can you walk me through?

Do you believe that you're gonna be able to address the court's concerns?

I say that with a hundred percent confidence because I do that every single day.

Our department um supports the court every day, and our sentencing reports, our supplemental reports, and the supervision of the population, and um we have a really strong record with the court.

I think um that's part of the reason why they want to move in this direction because they will have direct oversight um on what happens with the program because it is a service to the court per statute, and so.

And do I understand correctly the pretrial diversion is a court-managed process?

Yes.

Okay.

I I'm I'm gonna say that you know, most of my career, I have worked in offices that are involved in the court, and I'm powerfully persuaded when the Superior Court of California tells us that they lack confidence in the service that's fulfilling a function.

They're tasking you with solving the problems that they're encountering with the incumbent provider.

I know that there is for budget for our purposes, we're in a situation where we probably have to live with the fact that there's going to be redundancy and perhaps some inefficiency as we make this transition.

Um I don't want to contemplate whether we're gonna get into a sort of um, you know, sort of uh battle of uh branches of government, but we have the judiciary directing um a department that it oversees, and it's up to us to fund that.

Um I will say that I the thing that kind of is unsettling to me is when the court points out that they have disparate findings from pretrial diversions claim of a 94% safety rate, and the court is coming up with a 69%.

In your other work for the court, do you have similar disparities in the numbers that the court is showing and what you're showing?

No, we have uh I we're scrutinized by the court directly um as I say because we have direct oversight and I have to report out to the court twice a month.

Okay.

Um okay I mean I guess I it sounds to me like we're you you think we might be on track for January but we have we we want to make sure that we do this without anything fall falling through the cracks I I do it seems to me that what we have arrived at is we've approved the the contract understanding that we're putting two years on reserve in your view is getting it right I know that in the it hiring up this quickly is unusual but I mean we may have some flexibility to get you to where you need to be that will satisfy the court's concerns.

Can you just address the time the timing that you think you've got and if you're going to be able to get there in the course of a half a year or year.

Right and uh we are not going to raise a raise our thumb of go live until we're absolutely confident that we will will be um until we're absolutely confident that our program has full legs and we're ready to go okay I do not have any pressure from the the court or well they the court definitely wants this to happen as quickly as possible but um they are definitely relying on the feedback that we're that we're providing as to where we are as we move through the phases we're not gonna launch until we're resourced and prepared between now and then we'll just be refining our vision.

Okay.

I mean I I appreciate your answers I would just say I I am powerfully persuaded that when the superior court expresses a lack of confidence in a provider to take that very seriously it has not been my experience in 20 something years of working for the city and county of San Francisco most of those years working with judges whatever it issues I may have had sometimes with decisions the essential competence of the superior court of California here in the county of San Francisco is not one of them.

So I to me this feels like there is um I I don't know that there is a strong case to be made to not do or to to stiff arm the court as it were in what the court is directing us to do.

I think what we have to figure out is and to live with is there's going to be some it seems to me some inherent inefficiency because there's gonna have to be redundance as we make the transition I just don't know if the if it's on the table that we're gonna say we're not gonna fund the transition.

I would hope that we don't get into a situation like that because I think it would be problematic for our relationship with another branch of government but I appreciate your answers.

Agreed thank you.

Thank you.

My apologies Chair Chan I just wanted to say one more thing too um as we move forward through this process and we think about what's being proposed here you're also your department has also taken on another service another service area and adding the work of violence reduction and SVIP into your portfolio as well so you're doing the work of violence prevention you're doing the work of pretrial or proposing to do both in a real short time period.

So I just wanted to make sure that for the record that that was stated that your department is going to be attempting to take on a lot in a short period of time and be asked to do it effectively and it is very concerning.

If I could say that this is a work that is not a heavy lift for us as it relates to SVIP, SVRT.

When Mayor Lee was alive and with us, he entrusted adult probation to help to lead the IPO program.

And so our department has been very much in the forefront.

I was there, I've been in department a long time.

This is a huge opportunity for us to recalibrate, rethink what exists currently and develop through this partnership with DCYF and DPH in order to create a really robust network for San Francisco as it relates to this issue.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

And I would just state being intimately involved with IPO, one of the creators of IPO, someone who was one of the only providers of the IPO program.

Absolutely.

I know and understand the intricacies of this work, the SVIP work, what is required for connection with community and in community.

And there's a stigma with adult probation in communities across San Francisco.

So when we're talking about bringing on folks who actually work with people who are in the system that we're trying to get to change, it is a barrier, automatic barrier for adult probation to be working in this capacity.

And so having be having being mindful of that and knowing and understanding that you're also going to take on the work of pretrial is definitely still a major concern because this is different work going in community, actually working with folks who have a stigma with adult probation just from onset.

Thank you, Provisor.

We look forward to speaking with you further on the vision.

Thank you so much.

Thank you, Supervisor Walton.

And with that, I'm gonna articulate this.

I think that let's have continued conversation with adult probation with Superior Court and with the Sheriff's Department.

Um I think the goal is here's two.

Uh one is that let's actually make sure uh what we have already approved as a contract in terms of terms of condition for pretrial through the sheriff's department, um, that we understand uh what what that actually would look like in terms of spending for the transitions and that contract, but then also what the adult probation actually needs.

Let's not I am inclined to either part of the sheriff's department's budget, which we are uh indicated, uh, as well as adult probation, particularly the second year uh on reserve or first, maybe half of the first year or the second or certain aspects of it to be put on reserve so that we can have that conversation and have allowing this committee to as uh supervisor sauter and and vice chair Dorsey and just you know, and and supervisor Walton, all these I think actually, so does so does Supervisor Chen.

Everybody actually clearly have questions.

So it will be good to actually put on funding on reserve so that allowing this conversation and be able to take place maybe six months from now on, um, before um we implement or before before the official launch.

Um, but I think that it's a bit complicated of how much and where and how.

So I I would want us to sort out what that looks like uh to allow accountability and conversation, public conversation for this body to actually have.

So that's one thought.

And second hot thoughts that I would like to also to articulate that I would love all departments, including Superior Court to be actually a um partner in problem solving this is clearly if this is a quote unquote a court mandate because of the penal goal change, um, I would like to understand if we could get reimbursements from the state for this transition, um, that if this is a court mandate because of state legislature has changed the policy, I would like to have our local um jurisdiction be able to be reimbursed and would ask that Superior Court to be a partner in this, um, to ask for uh reimbursement, Vice Chair Dorsey.

I I want I applaud you for my raising that because one of the things, in fact, I just had this conversation.

There, there are some dollars that I think San Francisco may be leaving on the table in terms of asset forfeitures and things things that we could do just generally in the criminal justice system.

I think we do.

We're we're doing a good job, for example, uh, in the healthcare sector of drawing down Medi-Cal dollars.

I think there I I think there might be some money that we're leaving on the table with the state that might be helpful with this.

So thank you, Chair Chan, for your thoughts on that, and that is something we should explore.

And of course, I think that um uh my apologies, uh, everyone and colleagues.

Uh it's already twelve or four.

Uh, it is my commitment that we will have a thirty minutes break, so we'll come back with public defender in which I think that he probably can also give us some thoughts about particularly on this issue, and it is my interest to get his take as well as Share's Paul, my motos take uh later today.

Uh, which we can have this conversation continue on the rest of this afternoon.

Um, thank you so much for your presentation, Chief, and we appreciate you and your work.

Uh, I do concur with Supervisor Walton.

You know, like how do we make sure that you are set up for success uh in during this transition?

Uh, and to make sure that we can do and implement all programs.

I see that, and so we will return at twelve thirty five.

San Francisco government television.

Very good.

We are returning to the June twelve, twenty twenty six meeting of the budget and appropriation committee and uh with the city department hearing, and now we have our public defender.

Welcome.

Thank you for the opportunity to present on the budget for the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.

As you're all aware, our office is at an inflection point.

We serve San Francisco's are rising, cases are becoming increasingly complex, people who can't afford an attorney and our communities needs are guaranteed one by the constitution.

Our ass reflect what it actually takes to deliver justice in fairness, an investment in public safety, an investment in community trust.

I look forward to walking you through our staffing, our clients, our workload pressures, and the meaningful re-entry work our office does every day.

But before going through this presentation, I'd like to just reflect for a moment on the awesome responsibility of walking into a jail cell or to an immigrant detention facility, and knowing that the quality of the holistic representation that we provide is going to have a dramatic impact on the rest of that individual's life, their family, and the young people of the next generation.

Our mission, vision, value, and theory of change represents the foundation of our office.

This is not a passive role.

We're active participants in shaping a more just San Francisco.

Our vision is a world where collective humanity is cherished, where no one is defined by their worst moment, and where everyone has access to a zealous legal defense, regardless of income, to make more fair and just results happen.

Our values are love, courage, compassion, and excellence, and our budget and continued requests are not simply an operational ask.

They're a commitment to those values in action.

Each year, our office serves over 20,000 indigent people in San Francisco.

We're assigned cases directly by the court under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, a guaranteed right to counsel.

100% of our clients are low income.

We represent 84% of all indigent defendants in San Francisco.

Many come from communities, both within and outside this country that have endured structural discrimination and multiple complex traumas.

Many are living with mental health conditions.

A significant number are limited English speakers and/or immigrants, navigating a legal system and language barriers, cultural challenges, and heightened immigration consequences attached to every single case.

Effective defense for these clients requires not just attorneys but also social workers, paralegals, investigators, and clerks and supervisors, and this has been articulated in the California public defense workload study that was commissioned by the legislature.

We continue to, and I'm obsessed with this, strategic planning, assess and strategically deploy our staff to meet the most urgent needs, even as our staff capacity has remained constrained and static.

Since we presented our staffing makeup to you last year, we've shifted attorney staffing and management positions to address the rising caseload, both in misdemeanor and the felony units, where the demand has increased due to the higher arrest and filing rates.

We expanded social worker and paralegal support in the misdemeanor unit, recognizing that holistic defense requires more than just attorneys.

We added a medical social worker to the mental health unit that is currently representing 730 conservatives, the three attorneys in that unit, to provide a continuum of care for clients with severe mental health challenges, addressing root causes, and also facilitating appropriate placements for these individuals.

We fill vacancies very quickly on average within two to three months of receiving approval.

Our current vacancy rate is less than 3% with two new positions on boarding in July.

We're not really in a position to leave vacancies open for a long period of time because there's always a caseload when there's a vacancy that we have to reassign as quickly as we possibly can.

Despite these adaptations, our staff cannot keep pace with the volume and the complexity of what we're being asked to handle.

Looking at a comparison here, the office maintains a robust and dedicated staff, but compared to the district attorney, the capacity gap is striking, particularly when you look beyond attorneys to investigators and support staff.

This chart, by the way, excludes our mental health and immigration units, and those aren't cases that the DA looks at, but our investigators are where the gap is hit the hardest.

The district attorney has 36, we have 20.

And as you know, of course, the police department is actively working alongside the prosecution to build cases.

So we're trying to counter that investigative machine with nearly half the resources.

And to give you an idea, we have one investigator sent to three felony attorneys and a misdemeanor attorney.

And what that means is they just simply can't get to all the cases.

They do as much as they can, extremely hardworking, but that leads to delays, not just for the accused and their families, witnesses, victims, everyone in the system, law enforcement who have to continue return to court until we can get the case ready for trial.

Support staff follows the same pattern 155 at the district attorney's office, 87 at ours, 40% less, 44% less of the infrastructure that keeps attorneys in court out of administrative work and focused on their clients.

A well-resourced prosecution deserves an equally resource defense, and right now that balance doesn't exist, and our system and clients spare the consequences.

Current fiscal year budget is approximately 58 million, and the comparison shows the funding disparity across some of our major public safety departments.

Our budget is roughly six times less than the sheriffs, 14 times less than the police departments.

Agency whose work feeds the cases were required by law to defend.

Most strikingly, we receive 4.3% of the combined budgets of the police sheriff DA probation and superior court, yet we're the only agency in the system constitutionally required to represent the people caught in it.

This is a structural imbalance, not a fiscal footnote.

This chart before you tells a clear story.

Our office is really people powered devoted directly to client representation, covering the full range of misdemeanor, felony, mental health, youth, and immigration cases from arraignment all the way to re-entry support.

Only 4% of our budget goes to administration, HR payroll finance.

This is an extraordinarily lean administrative footprint for an office of our size and complexity.

This next slide captures what's driving our workload crisis.

And these aren't hypothetical pressures.

Each factor listed here has increased over the past year.

There have been a lot more arrests by the police department, and again, we don't control that.

That's decisions made by others, but we do have the downstream constitutional impact of it.

More filings by the district attorney means more clients assigned to our attorneys.

Fewer cases settling or being diverted means more cases going to full litigation and jury trials, which are among the most intensive resource intensive tasks that an attorney can undertake.

So this is increasing contributing to increasingly high active misdemeanor and felony caseload.

Misdemeanor active caseloads have risen by 68%, and felony active caseloads have increased by 52% since 2019.

The recent California Supreme Court Kowalchik decision is going to create immediate obligations for our staff to identify clients who are held on unconstitutional pretrial detention or unaffordable bail.

So we're in a position now where we're going to be coming up with release plans that are as comprehensive as possible and to make sure that our clients are able to both make their court dates and make sure that and support public safety.

At the same time, we're going to have to get financial records to provide the court with information about what affordable bail is actually going to mean in any particular case.

Okay.

The bottom line is we're doing more with less, and that's not really sustainable.

So we're going to continue to advocate and work with you and the mayor's office, the MBR MBO and the budget team, which who we do appreciate to address our staffing and operational needs.

And what we should be guided by is what we have for the first time in half a century.

We have a national workload study.

It's produced by the RAN Corporation and the American Bar Association.

And we also have a California workload report produced pursuant to AB 625.

And it came out on September 29th, 2025.

So just now in California government code, it's been codified in California Government Code 15403.

I also want to leave the board with a clear picture of what our office produces beyond the courtroom.

These are examples of programs and initiatives that directly reduce recidivism, restore lives, and strengthen public safety.

The home farming project partners with impact justice where we're tackling the housing pricing head on for people returning from incarceration, where people are being paid to house people in their home when they're returning from prison because we know that stable housing is the single most reliable predictor of successful re-entry.

We had a state legislative victory, AB 321.

Our advocacy help passed this, it's called the BIDEC, Better Informed Decisions Act.

It gives judges discretion to reduce a felony wobbler case before trial.

That's something could be charged as a misdemeanor or felony.

If they find change circumstances, either something different about the case, whether it's a witness statement or something else that's uncovered, or the client who's now been incentivized to either engage in substance use disorder treatment or get a job or start an educational path.

That change by that client now gives a judge with that um change in circumstance the ability to reduce something, a felony to a misdemeanor, which is going to free up the felony docket and enable people to move in a more positive direction more quickly.

We have a freedom project that to date has secured the release of 108 people from state prison through resentencing and parole advocacy with zero recidivism, and that's thanks to our superstar social workers who work in that unit.

And of course, our clean slate program, which I appreciate, the mayor's office removing the limited term on the 2.5 positions there.

It's our criminal record expungement program that removes barriers to employment and housing and vacates convictions for survivors of human trafficking.

A clean record means a real second chance.

Thank you for that.

Happy to field any questions.

Thank you.

Just want to thank you so much for your work.

We understand there are many challenges in the last, especially in the last couple years, to try to get your staffing load and be responsive and still be able to ensure rights of everyday people when they have to go through the criminal justice system.

So thank you so much.

But just wanted to give a note, and if you'd like to comment on just the transition of the pretrial, you have provided a letter specifically stating your position.

Just thought that I wanted to also ask you on the record.

Sure.

Thank you for that.

You know, that phase of pretrial, and especially with this new Kowalchik decision, is a very crucial phase, right?

So we want to ensure that our clients make all their court dates.

We want to ensure that if there's an underlying issue that may have caused the initial rest, that we're addressing that through whatever terms are appropriate, whether it's substance use disorder, as I said before, we're going to try and get, we're going to on our own do our own work there.

And we're often asked by the court to, because we often have more information, frankly, than either probation or pretrial, whichever way this goes, they're going to have, we provide that to the court.

And frankly, the courts are often relying on our social workers to provide that.

But the thing about pretrial, and I've had the fortune of working with so many of the staff members in pretrial, it's it's very clear that they care about our clients, and they are really understanding some of the underlying dynamics and really trying to make sure they connect those clients with the appropriate services and get them back to court.

Seeing one of them repeatedly, I actually offered her a position in our social worker unit, which I'm so happy that she accepted.

And I think the issue with probation in our historic relationship to probation is frankly, we often have to go with the clients to probation because we're afraid of what can be said, what might be misinterpreted as a law enforcement agency.

Some of those things can then be used against them potentially in sentencing or in a violation, and that, as Supervisor Walton pointed out earlier, that trust level isn't always there, and that's probably the most important factor in enabling someone to succeed pretrial.

Is being able to be completely transparent with the person that they're interacting with so that they can get the appropriate services for them.

I think that you know there has an explicit carve out for SF pre-trial for a reason, and it's and I know from talking to uh other public defenders around the country and uh being informed by pretrial services here, they're often consulted for how to effectively do pretrial.

Are there ways that can be improved?

Absolutely, as with all of our agencies.

And what I would suggest actually, and I've talked to Sheriff Miyamoto about this is that we re-institute working groups so we can see if there are gaps where those gaps can be filled.

And I think that's the frankly the area that we should be investing in, is getting those systems along with the court, which I'm happy to meet with.

So if there are issues that we can smooth those out so that pretrial can not just continue in its current duration but actually operated at high level, higher level within the sheriff's department.

Thank you.

We appreciate you and thank you again for your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next, we will have the fire department.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, other members of the committee.

Dean Crispin, Fire Chief.

Uh, thank you very much for the opportunity to present on our proposed budget for fiscal years twenty six-27 and twenty-seven-28.

First slide, please.

Uh, first, we'll provide a high-level overview, high-level overview of our department's budget by fund.

We're predominantly a general fund department.

The structural breakdown of our budget is fairly consistent year over year, as you can see.

Next slide.

Here's a quick slide to show what type of expenditures our allocations go to.

You can see the two biggest slices of the pie make up almost 90% of our overall budget, and they represent personnel costs and salaries and benefits.

And the vast majority of our personnel costs are dedicated to frontline emergency fire, EMS, and community paramedicine services.

Here's our budget allocation by function.

As mentioned in the previous slide, frontline operations is predominantly where our funds are focused, with our infrastructure and support divisions making up the remainder.

When we talk about budget instructions, budget reductions, and the budget process, above everything else, the fire department prioritizes emergency response to the residents and visitors of San Francisco.

This includes our frontline fire suppression, emergency medical services, and community prepared medicine services.

This is the backbone of the department, and all other department functions exist to support this mission.

Given budgetary constraints, the budget, the department has had to look at how these services are delivered and try to find efficiencies, either operational and or fiscal to improve daily response and prepare for large-scale disasters and emergencies.

This include analyzing workflows and supervisorial duties, as well as leveraging technology where appropriate.

These efforts are made even more challenging in the light of increasing call volume for the department.

This next graph will indicate that.

As noted in the previous slide, one of the challenges we have when we talk about budget reductions is that the department's call volume continues to increase over time.

The fire department is projected to respond to over 180,000 distinct incidents in the current year, current fiscal year.

As a scope of services, the department provides increases.

Our daily staffing levels have stabilized in recent years.

We've had to do more with existing resources and find efficiencies.

In the proposed budget before you, the fire department is looking at nine total deleted positions, made up of six civilian positions and three uniform positions.

For the civilian positions, there were no layoffs involved, as these positions were held vacant due to the hiring freeze.

For the uniform positions, members were reassigned and supervisorial responsibilities were redistributed among other employees.

The department also identified increased EMS revenues as a result of some legislative changes at the state level to assist with offsetting general fund costs in the budget.

Here's a high-level org chart.

The department has approximately 1,850 full-time employees.

Uniform functional areas are split across three deputy chiefs, operations, administration, and EMS.

The department's three deputy chiefs are supported by nine assistant deputy chiefs spread across various disciplines.

All positions are in an exempt capacity at the will of the chief of department.

In addition, the department has five civilian managers over such areas as finance, human relations, and IT.

All positions on the command staff are currently filled.

In the past few years, the department's restored the overall health of its staffing levels coming out of the pandemic with the support of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor's Office as its hiring plan has allowed the department to conduct academies that have allowed the department to backfill vacant uniform positions.

These staffing initiatives continue into the two budget years before you with funds allocated to hire two H2 firefighters academies in each fiscal year, along with H3 EMT paramedic academies to maintain existing staff levels for EMS ambulances, ambulance services, and community paramedicine.

A healthy staffing level has improved morale, reduced the need for mandatory overtime, and provided a robust workforce to be available in case of a recall in a disaster or large emergency.

Next slide.

This is a brief chart to show our reductions in overtime in our operating fund.

Over the past five years, actual overtime expenditures have reduced by 28% in that period.

If you remove wage increases, that reduction increases 38% over the five years.

This is a direct result of the mayor's department's hiring initiatives, and we want to thank the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor's Office for their support.

Now, looking to a few initiatives that we're very excited about in our budget.

The mayor's office has included significant allocation for fire apparatus replacement in the San Francisco Fire Department.

The commitment is an allocation of $8 million over a year over 10 years with the intent to replace all fire engines and trucks that are over 20 years old and all ambulances over 10 years old.

The department has a very aged fleet, resulting in performance issues, high maintenance and repair costs, and lack of crucial and dependable resources in a disaster or large emergency.

It has been extremely difficult to replace these units due to rising costs, supply chain issues, and market difficulties.

This is a crucial investment in San Francisco's public safety response.

I mentioned earlier in the presentation how crucial it was to have a healthy staffing level in case of the need to recall employees in a disaster or emergency.

We need to ensure these members have the tools they need to do their jobs when they come in.

Given this an allocation over time, the department is working closely with the controller's office on a financing mechanism to purchase these apparatus and make a large investment up front.

Health and safety.

Also included our budget is an allocation for personal protective equipment.

These turnout coats and pants are what firefighters depend on in an emergency to protect them from the elements of fire.

As you may recall, the city passed ordinance 106-24 in 2024 that prohibited the department from providing or using PPE that contained PFAS chemicals by June 30th, 2026.

At the time, this is groundbreaking legislation designed to protect the health and safety of fire department members from the elements of their job encountered during their course of duty, as cancer is the leading cause of death in the fire service.

The department was able to secure some grant funding to chip away at this replacement, but this investment will allow the department to completely replace all turnouts with PFAS-free units and maintain maintain the city's position on the cutting edge of firefighter health and safety.

The department was also allocated $500,000 to fund a portion of a joint project between the city, San Francisco Fire Department, Local 798 Firefighters Union, and the San Francisco Firefighters Cancer Prevention Foundation.

This project will make use of new technologies and offer members advanced cancer screenings to support early detection.

With that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Chief, I really appreciate everything you're doing to um protect us as San Franciscans and also protect the health and safety of your members.

I wanted to just tease out because I think this is a question that I often I ask a lot of the public safety agencies.

When I see the um a reduction in civilian roles, I'd like to know that we're not eliminating a civilian position to create a responsibility for a sworn or uniform member.

It's almost defeating the purpose of that.

So I just wanted to invite you to.

And that's a valuable and important question.

I refer to the one slide that discusses the areas that we've had reductions.

So through technology and integration of our operations, we've been able to do more with less.

So we've been able to take on those duties.

For example, one of the positions that's being deleted is it's our facilities manager, and that's the individual who would manage incoming phone calls from fire stations to say that they need repairs at the facility.

Now through technology, we can completely automate that so it eliminates the need for that person, and we can dispatch.

We have an on-duty plumber, electrician, and a stationary engineer that can manage these as well as a civilian.

So they're not uniformed, but they actually function as in place of that person.

And we also have materials coordinator, that's a person who issues our turnouts, and we found our turnout gear, and then we found that uh having uniform personnel there uh makes that run a lot more smoothly in the current period.

Um we are going to be issuing a lot of turnouts in the next couple years with this incredible proposed uh proposed budget that we have.

And once we do that, then it should settle down and we should be able to use uh use like a modified duty folks or others to to perform those functions.

Okay.

That sounds great.

And I'm gonna I am also um grateful to see that we're gonna be making an investment in the uh apparatus.

I think that's something that we agree on, and it really is for a city like ours, an investment.

I think every time I have a meeting about just preparedness, I point to uh New York Times feature story called San Francisco's Big Seismic Gamble about San Francisco moving its downtown to the South of Market district that I represent.

Um, there's a high risk of liquefaction and and problems, but if we knowing that we're going to be ready for that, is it really is truly an investment in our city?

So I'm um grateful for your work to get that done and I'm gonna support it.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chief, I I just had a question, sort of going back to the blackout that we had, um, but also just for the the blackout from PG and G that we had in December, but also in the last few, like particularly last two years that we have seen autonomous vehicle um operating in our city and creating problems for our first responders.

Um do you have any data uh indicating the additional resources and staffing that we end up have to deploy that you end up have to deploy um just to tackle some of these challenges that we see that is caused by autonomous vehicle, either blocking role, blocking intersections, or you know, the worst case was, in my opinion, um, during the blackouts when they were they're just so many of them, or all of them literally then stuck in our role weight.

Sure, so um that was an incredibly busy night for us.

We went uh uh to three times more calls than we normally do in that evening.

Um, fortunately, our our members are well versed on different directions to go.

We're able to manipulate their vehicles or apparatus around the Waymo's, but it definitely creates uh a delay in response and a danger to the residents.

Um we did staff additional members at communicate at the communication center that evening.

Um, and frankly, if we have a major emergency like a disaster, those uh vehicles are gonna get pushed out of the way probably by a fire engine or a vehicle that we provide, and we do have a plan in place where a bureau of equipment can respond to intersections and move vehicles out of the way, but that's a last case, you know, last resort.

Um, as far as the PG and E piece, you know, there are clearly some issues at the substation at 8th and mission, um, some ponding inside of it from some leaky roofs and things that put our members in danger, which is of great concern to myself, and this is the third uh case of the failure at that facility in my career.

Yeah, um, I think what I am trying to get at today is I'm interested in um creating a um fee legislation uh specifically for autonomous vehicle that will can be cited now.

They they can be cited, uh, but specifically for autonomous vehicle that will require um our first responder, be a police officer or um uh firefighters, first responder that will actually have to react to them as an emergency response and and emergency fees charges.

Um so we'll love to learn more um, not just from the PG and E incidents, but sort of uh over a period of time that first responder will end up have to respond to autonomous vehicle being malfunctioned and adding into either your rescue mission or creating blockage to access.

Thank you.

Yeah, there the other issue that we're having is um if somebody has falls asleep in a Waymo, uh they call the Waymo automatically calls 911 and then we end up responding.

So some of our resources end up being tied up in those type of responsive for somebody who has just fallen asleep in the Waymo.

So it's something we're really looking into.

Uh, we're trying to work with them to have a vibration system in the Waymo or a louder alert to wake people up when they are dropped off late at night.

So uh, but it does it is a is a draw on our resources.

Interesting.

Thank you.

I appreciate it.

I don't see other name on the roster.

Um we now will go to the next department.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you very much.

Uh we will now go to the sheriffs.

Wait, we can slip in the local corner.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan, many members of the committee.

Appreciate being here.

Um I'll be going through the first few slides that we have in our presentation today, followed by uh staffing slides that Patrick will take care of and um we'll be open to any questions you might possibly have on any part of this process.

Uh good afternoon, thank you for the opportunity of presenting our budget.

Um, one of the asks during this process was uh in regards to our programs and services.

I wanted to highlight the three levels of programs that we have our core services, uh operating county jails, court security services, law enforcement and security services to city agencies, civil court matters and electronic monitoring.

That's our core functions, both constitutional and city ordinance.

Strategic programs that we have are related specifically to justice involved individuals, both in and out of custody, our alternative programs for those that are out of custody, including SWAP, our reentry and support programs, including our no violence alliance and our survival restoration project.

Uh our overarching community programs, uh, some of the programs that we have in custody are our free inmate phone calls and tablets and educational programs.

And I'd highlight that we don't have any discretionary programs, however, we do participate and help manage one specific program with PUC that um we are not funded for, but uh directly affects our resources and people.

Next slide, please.

Um, our organizational chart as you can see, uh we're divided into four divisions under both the under sheriff and assistant sheriff.

Uh I want to highlight that two of our executive management positions have gone uh uh empty right now.

Uh both our assistant sheriff and chief of staff positions are currently vacant.

Uh, but the rest of our management staff uh that is in place uh is listed here.

And uh I also want to highlight one other thing that we're going to have a significant turnover at our captain's level.

Uh we have I believe three that have left, and that's out of nine.

So a third of our captain-level ranks uh are going to be newer individuals once those recs are approved.

Uh the next few slides, I'll have Patrick cover those, involving our sworn workforce measurements, department staffing, and hiring and separation trends.

Thank you, Sheriff.

During the last two years, through the sheriff's Office Asselerated hiring Program, we've significantly reduced the staffing gap between our authorized sworn staffing and also our field positions by 39%.

We've improved the staffing gap from 230, a shortfall of 230 authorized positions to now a present vacancy rate of 140.

I also want to highlight that with our retirement retention incentive program, 19 members have continued providing service to the city and county of San Francisco, and through this process, it helps save the city a million dollars in fringe benefit costs this year alone.

For next fiscal year, the sheriff's office has a goal to hire 75 deputies.

In this following table, we show where the progression has the progression between our sworn professional staff and cadet staffing.

What you can see here is that we've improved the number of positions that we filled across the board.

However, I want to highlight that for professional staff.

We deleted 11 positions in the fiscal year 26 budget year, and also there's been one position uh deleted in fiscal year 27 for our fleet manager.

These positions, these deleted positions do reverse some previous efforts to civilianize some administrative functions.

And although the professional staff shows a 70% fill rate, when we consider the deleted positions, the vacancy rate is approximately one-third.

In terms of hiring trends, what we can see is we've significantly helped uh sworn staffing in the last two fiscal years.

We've we've hired approximately a hundred sworn deputies each of the last two years, and our goal is to hire 75 for next year.

I'll pass it off to the sheriff to discuss the reset center.

So we did want to highlight in our presentation two specific areas of our operations.

One is the reset center, which is our rapid enforcement support evaluation and triage center.

Recently opened, and to date, as of this morning, we've had 643 arrivals at the site.

We've been able to surpass our expectations in regards to people that are released into connect and connected to care.

We stand at about 28% of that.

About 177 of those individuals were connected to care upon their release.

This whole site is based on the concept that we wanted a space between jails and hospitals where individuals that are under the influence in public can go and basically sleep it off and care for themselves in a nurturing therapeutic environment with health care professionals, not in a jail, not in a holding cell.

So far, in regards to our operations, we have deputies that are assigned there outside of the care areas of the facility.

We utilize CareConnect apps to reduce admission times to the center, and we have a quicker transition for officers and arresting agencies so they can drop the individual off and get right back out to being on the streets and being in the community.

This is a collaboration between not just ourselves but the department of public health, police department, district attorney's office, and fire department.

And uh I personally feel that we've enjoyed some successes here, and I look forward to the continued funding of this uh center and uh the continued good work that they do.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh, pretrial services.

Uh I have been very cognizant of the interest from the board from this committee specifically in regards to pretrial services as well as our community, and I do want to say that currently pretrial sits under us.

Um, I do know that many of you had questions uh for both the courts, the probation department, uh, the public defender regarding this.

Happy to answer any of those questions as well, but I want to point out something in regards to this.

Our current uh current plans are to continue our contract with pretrial diversion.

Uh, right now we're funded through the first six months, I believe, Chair Chan, uh, as you had mentioned, um, and there was an interest in having a transition for the probation department in January of next year.

My personal feeling is that we will need to be funded for pretrial further than those six months.

And I believe that there is a need for increased collaboration between our justice partners in order to make sure that this is uh something that addresses the concerns and needs of the courts while at the same time also focuses on a continuity of services and the good work that pretrial has done through the years consistently uh is something that needs to be recognized and leveraged uh as a part of any sort of transition.

There are many different subjects that were brought up in regards to pretrial, uh, many questions that all of you brought up.

Uh, I do want to say that in regards to what the courts are interested in in doing, uh, one uh there was a carve out in assembly bill, I think it was 102, uh, specific to the use of probation in pretrial services.

Um what wasn't mentioned is that in that bill uh that gives courts the ability to contract with probation departments, um, there were carve outs specific to San Francisco.

Uh section four, paragraph nine.

I'll be happy to provide that to you, but that was very specific to us because we already had pretrial diversion uh being conducted by the organization, and it was a sign of its success that it was recognized as a carve out.

Um the change would be a significant change to our processes.

Uh there is a concern, as was mentioned by public defender Rajou about a recent court decision, uh Walc, which uh will have impacts on uh justice involved persons that have misdemeanor charges.

Uh, and there's going to be an increase in the out-of-custody pretrial population, an increase in uh individuals who will need that supervision and and care.

Uh I also want to reference in regards to pretrial that once we were made aware of the interest in the courts to make a change.

Uh, we have been and will continue to be partners in any sort of collaboration in order to make sure that this is something that will not directly affect the processes that we currently have in place.

That is of a uh significant concern to me as the sheriff for two reasons.

One, uh, under the Buffin decision, we have uh a direct responsibility in the management and care of individuals that are in our custody uh that are out of our custody but still justice involved, and uh any material changes to the way we do things right now with our pretrial process uh may have impacts uh on me as the sheriff being one of the people that are uh that were in that lawsuit.

The second one that is more concerning to me is our population and the effects of our incarcerated population.

We are managing the numbers right now in anticipation of any sort of changes, we will be able to manage the numbers if there's an increase, but I am concerned because we don't know, because although there are plans and people talking about implementing plans, uh there hasn't been an application of those.

I was concerned only because, and I won't continue to talk to the chief probation, uh, chief of probation, uh Crystal Tullock, uh, regarding our collaboration on any sort of transition, but um the timeline presented didn't have dates, and the number one concern for me uh as a partner in this process is at least having some sort of touchstones and dates associated with the phases.

Uh, and until we get those, we could not come to you as a body and ask for funding for something that we're not sure when it's going to start.

So uh that is a concern for me uh in regards to pretrial.

Uh I'll be happy to address any questions that you have on that regarding pretrial uh as soon as Patrick finishes the remainder of our presentation.

This next slide shows the budgetary sources for the next two fiscal years.

And then this last slide shows our budgetary uses.

The major increases in general fund support is a 24 million dollar increase in personnel costs.

That's primarily due to a adjustment in attrition to account for increases in the number of deputies that we hired this year, and also to factor the benefit increases for our members who are on CalPers.

The non-personal services has also increased by approximately 6.7 million.

That's associated with the contracted services for the reset center.

And then lastly, there's a million dollars in capital outlay, which is for a new uh transport uh bus.

And if there's any questions from the committee, we'd be happy to answer them.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

Um did I miss a conversation about overtime in these slides?

Which slide?

I'm sorry.

Oh, any slide.

I will be happy to uh answer any questions related to our overtime that weren't covered in any slide presentation.

How much did you forecast and overtime for this next budget?

The overtime budget is approximately 30.

Sorry.

Apologize, I do have the information, but it's on my desk.

It's a pro it's 30.

Uh let me let me let me do this because you can bring the information back next year.

But and then compared to what did you forecast last year and overtime and how much did you actually spend?

The overtime for this year, as compared to last year, there was an increase of approximately 2.2 million dollars.

Um that was to help staff uh the deputy support for the reset center.

Um, and then the any minor differences from this current year would be due to uh colour increases.

So you didn't go over your overtime budget last year?

For last year or this year.

The last fiscal year.

Last fiscal year we did.

We requested a uh a surplus uh supplemental and also a surplus transfer.

If you could bring those numbers uh next week or send them over.

Thank you.

I actually have the exact questions as Supervisor Walton on over time.

I'm interested to understand.

Um, as you know, previously that this police department was actually roughly for them like the year before was about 31 million dollars over time, and they kept to that 31 million dollars roughly uh for their overtime.

So I'm interested.

Similar to what Supervisor Walton has asked, is that what was what is your what is your included you know in your budget for overtime this year?

And and by comparison to your previous year, Supervisor Chin.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Uh thank you, Sheriff, for your presentation.

Yes, I do have some questions related to pretrial.

So you mentioned that uh in assembly bill 102, that's a cava for the judicial system.

So is that but there's also multiple times that's being referred to as a judicial mandate under PINOCO.

So can you clarify for me, is that a Benday or not a mend day?

So, in regards to the uh AB 102 as uh legislation, the carve out is specific to two counties, San Francisco and Santa Clara County at the time.

Uh we had a entity that was performing pretrial services for us.

Uh so that carve out was provided to us because of that uh specific to pretrial assessment and supervision.

In terms of the language regarding mandate, as was mentioned by Supervisor Dorsey earlier, as the sheriff, I have an interest in making sure that all of our justice collaborations include all partners, including the courts, and the courts have expressed concerns about the current system that we have in place, specifically the work of pretrial diversion as an entity.

That was when we first were made aware by the courts of their interest in moving away from pretrial diversion and into this model that's being proposed.

I think that many members of the committee have mentioned that there's going to be some redundancy and overlap if this is to occur.

And there are some challenges because we have to be very deliberate, thoughtful, and detailed in regards to planning something like this out.

As I mentioned earlier, I don't believe six months is realistic to get that done.

I know we work with our community corrections partnership in terms of looking to funding.

And it is something that we were looking to as well.

You mentioned, you know, you felt that this was like looking at two competing things, and kind of like a he said she said, in terms of when you start to ask questions about why we're doing what we're doing.

Ultimately, the courts have an interest in making sure that they have full transparency in the processes that are involved in the management, supervision of not just pretrial diversion, but of the clients that are in their care.

And uh what hasn't been mentioned is some of those processes.

Uh our ongoing work as the sheriff's office, which oversees pretrial diversion.

Uh, we do have those processes in place.

Uh I will recognize as was mentioned by the public defender earlier, there have been gaps in communications with the courts in regards to this.

Um, there was a direct communication between pretrial diversion and the courts, which due to different circumstances involving finances and involving uh requests for information, uh, started to cloud the relationship and started to uh started to deteriorate the that relationship.

And uh my interest as evidenced by the letter that I sent out yesterday is if we are looking at some sort of transition or change, we all need to be at the table and we all need to talk about it very deliberately and very detailed, uh, not just uh looking at the potential for an increase in software.

I want to point out that um uh Chief Tullock mentioned that they're leaning very heavily on tech as an improvement and they want to improve processes so that there are cost savings related to those improvements.

Um, ultimately, though, we're talking about working with people, and public defender Raj, you mentioned one of the greatest strengths of pretrial is their people and the commitment that they have to those that uh that are in their care.

Um we see that as well.

Uh we know that there needs to be continued discussion on this, and uh that doesn't answer your dilemma of trying to figure out how to allocate funding and resources to make sure that this works, but I believe that any sort of hybrid instead of any sort of absolute decisions on this uh would be best in the best interest of the justice system and our community uh when it comes to that.

That was a very long answer for you, supervisor.

I apologize.

Appreciate that answer.

Um, I mean, and now it comes back to a little bit about budget.

Is the budget that you allocate to pretrial?

Does that also enable them to provide staffing to support provide uh the support that's required now that it's asking by the judges?

Currently, the proposed budget only funds pre-trial the San Francisco pretrial contract for the first six months of the fiscal year.

Um we would either have to request a supplemental for uh the second half of this year.

We did, during the budget process, we did try to make a request to have this contract funded um in full with uh trying to acknowledge the concerns of all the different groups by considering a compromise of having the second half be placed on reserve.

Um however there weren't sufficient funds within the city budget um to include the requests in the proposed budget.

So let me ask it in another way.

So it's the funding to pretrial at for their staffing level.

So I I heard that earlier uh the court is mentioning that it's not a staff person from pretrial in courtroom.

So I want to ask is the budget that is funded for pretrial work.

That's it, there's a funding part to dedicate staffing to to be in the courtroom to support the judges' need.

So what I can say with that is our contract with pretrial services includes funding for approximately 65 full-time equivalent positions, it includes multiple areas.

There's approximately 20 positions for PSAs, there's approximately another 20 for the a certificate case management programs.

There's another 20 positions that are um grouped as court liaisons, uh, and then the remaining uh positions are primarily for administrative support.

If I may also add supervisor, in regards to your question and having staff available to support the courts.

Uh, I know that there were challenges.

That was one of the issues uh that the courts had concerns about.

Um, knowing who writes the report so that they can have a direct connect to that individual uh if they have questions about the reporting.

Uh I know that there were changes made in our processes so that there would be those individuals, and I believe that um something as simple as having the director's name on the report itself instead of the person that wrote the report uh was a challenge in terms of follow-up and making sure that the staff was available to the judges, and that's something that we have addressed and that I believe pretrial has addressed as well.

Great.

Um then you also mentioned that currently um the sheriff's department is finding about 64 positions with the budget of 7.5 million dollars.

But in the previous section that adult probation is proposing the same amount for 35 employees.

Can you help me understand where is the discrepancy between about 30 positions?

I think I haven't seen how the 30 positions for adult probation is um structured from the proposed budget in back in February when we compared it.

It didn't align one-to-one with the positions that we were funded under the pretrial contract.

Um there certainly I think when adult probation presented, they might mention that they were going to utilize some of their exact existing staffing resources, so that might account for some of the difference.

Um, the current contract as it exists, our understanding was at least for the pretrial contract, it covers four areas.

I think those are referenced on the slides as well that we presented, so that's what Patrick's looking for.

It covers four areas the uh pro calls PSA, the pretrial supervision.

Our understanding is that the budget positions for adult probation it would cover the PSAs and also the case management for some of the other services that originally were proposed electronic monitoring that remains with our office and I think some of the other requests that they have proposed within their original February budget.

I don't think it's part of the 30 but in terms of what's proposed in their budget versus um pretrial services I think just looking at the number of positions alone um the pretrial diversion contract covers 65 positions and so it my opinion is that the budget for adult probation would cover a portion of the work but not all of the current work being provided by pre-trial and one one more thing to note I believe that pretrial the entity itself also outside of our contracted uh funding they also get donations and funding from separate sources I thought they had an additional eight million for additional staff in anticipation of the increased workload related to Qual SIC and other factors.

So basically the existing pretrial services is more than 7.5 million dollars and even with 64 employees you know they they're doing good job but there are rooms for improvement and comparing to uh 35 employees that is proposed by adult probation I was just looking back to the slides that they propose the entire department have about 143 employees currently and then 35 is new for um the pretrial and then three for the uh violent prevention program so you know I'm just seeing and it's good to hear from you that you know seeing the worklow and hearing from the staffing and and and it's really really I think I will refer back to Supervisor Salter's comment is like we are seeing two competing contracts and then what efficiency and and how to deliver best services for San Franciscan.

Thank you.

That's all my question.

Thank you and Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you Chair Chan.

For sure I want to say congratulations on the so far success of the Reset Center this is something I've been a believer in and I'm really encouraged to see the number of um connections to care at 28% which is really impressive and let's hope that continues to go um up that's um I just wanted to and this I have a question about the the six months versus one year because and this may be more of a question for um Sophia Kittler from the mayor's office it was my understanding that we approved a three year contract with the understanding that we were putting two two years on reserve but we would have a at least a year that would give us so it wasn't my understanding that we would be giving six months of funding or are we talking about two different things.

Thank you Sophia Kitler for the mayor's budget office um I'm gonna say this as diplomatically as I can uh we were out of the budget system several weeks ago um the sheriff has the ability to put forward legislation and they put forward the contract with the knowledge of the proposed budget um and that came before you all after we had completed our budget deliberations um but before obviously it had come to you and I think this is absolutely a matter for for us all to decide and particularly for for you um all as the budget and appropriations committee decide um when we originally the court had mandated that we uh or had suggested directed, I mean choose your verb um based on all that uh had had indicated that they would prefer a July 1st 2026 start date, and we pushed back on that because we did not believe that adult probation could be ready by then.

Um and so what we did is we extended that rather than moving it immediately, we extend we we proposed that we fund the contract extension for six months.

Um we did that uh having had a number of conversations with all the different departments with the full knowledge that not everyone was on board, but but needing to make a decision.

Um I think between six months and one year is like reasonable people can disagree, and this is like this is why we are here, and this is why we have a deliberative process.

Um, but what we were reacting to was was should it be July 1st or not?

And we thought it should not be July 1st.

Okay.

Um and then as far as what the budget was the budget was decided and and in the system um before the contract came to you.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you.

I want to uh shift topics to uh slide four.

Can you just give a sense the professional staff?

The reason those feel like pretty high vacancy rates.

I mean, you're looking at only 65, 70, 75 percent of those positions filled, maybe why that is the case, and then if you can just articulate what those uh particular roles are for professional staff so we can get a sense of you know what is not being filled at the moment.

I'll answer that.

Okay.

In terms of the roles, primarily the uh the lack of hiring is primarily due to um budgetary deficits in our office.

It's a combination of the increased number of deputies that we hired and also the increased uh amount of overtime usage during this year.

For our professional staff positions, there's a lot of vacancies within our fingerprint unit.

There's 12 funded positions, however, two um only two are filled.

Our other areas where there's significant gaps include um our 8420, the rehabilitation service coordinators for those positions, they're only funded by approximately only about half of the positions are currently staffed.

Um our legal clerks within our uh central records warrants division and also our civil unit, those are also significantly understaffed.

Um those are within the civil division, only about half of the positions are funded or are filled, and for um the central records and warrants unit, part of the reduction in um deleted positions were uh in that unit.

We had to delete six uh legal clerk positions in central records and warrants to um satisfy the position reductions last fiscal year.

So it's not that you're trying to get them filled and you can't, but rather you're keeping them, you're not prioritizing them because you're you're putting the funds towards deputy hiring and overtime.

It is a bit of a combination of both.

Um we had tried to work with the mayor's office and controller's office on getting some of the positions um release, but definitely um the having a balanced budget is it is uh a contributing factor within it.

Um I think early on within the fiscal year when we at that point in time we were not a deficit, we did try to submit uh position requests to be filled, and uh we didn't get those approved in a timely fashion to be able to fill them.

Um, and then as we progressed through the year when um our deficits increased and uh we were placed on um hiring restrictions.

Thank you.

What is your attrition rate?

Or we have in terms of professional staff or uh, sure, you we are what is your attrition rate for your sworn and then non-sworn?

Um, uh, in terms of separations for sworn staff, we have approximately on average about fifty, um, approximately 50 positions each uh or 50 separations each year.

Um, and then for professional staff, it does vary from year to year.

Um, this I believe this fiscal year we've had seven separations.

So 50 out of your nine twenty.

We had uh for this year for professional staff, we had seven separations that includes um six cadets and three professional staff.

So is your attrition rate anywhere between like so for the sworn five percent?

Is that what you're saying?

Our attrition rate for um for sworn, uh, I'd have to do the math, but yeah, it's probably about five percent.

Five, five, yeah, five percent.

Okay.

Uh and you say how many for your um professional again?

It it does vary from year to year, um, excluding cadets.

Uh in three years ago we had 13 separations.

Yeah.

Uh last year we had seven, and currently so far we've had three separations.

Understood.

Um, thank you.

And um, I I think I have indicated earlier too that we would love to continue this conversation around pretrial, um, how the transition should be, which then impact the allocations of funding as well as what to put on reserve and how much, and to make sure we're not duplicating, but also allowing us to request for reimbursements from the state to help us understand this transition.

I assume that there's nothing more to act from the director Kitler.

No.

Um, I'm still, yeah, go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, the only things I would add, and and I think I would look to the city attorney to confirm this for all of you on a timeline that makes most sense.

Um, the state, the governor's state bill or budget today, which did reaffirm the carve out that it can by state law stay as a non as a contracted agency with the sheriff.

However, my understanding is it is still up to the courts to decide where they would like it.

Understood.

So just kind of reaffirming that everything is as it has been.

Right.

So it sounds to me, if I understand it correctly, is that for the city and county of San Francisco, that we have an exemption, a carve out that allowing the city of County of San Francisco to have this independent pretrial program as a currently fashioned and operated.

However, it is the authority and the jurisdiction of our superior court to then mandate the city and county of San Francisco to now then uh to abide by the penal code, the state penal code to then actually have the pretrial as a program and operate by adult probation.

So it then now becomes a conversation thanks to uh the system which we have already sheriff uh and this body to be able to have some conversation and make some determination, which I appreciate.

Thank you.

So with that, uh we will go to thank you, sheriff.

And so now we will go to the Department of Police Accountability.

Thank you, I think.

Please.

Good afternoon.

Paul Henderson, the executive director at the Department of Police Accountability.

Thank you so much, supervisors, for having us here.

Today I'm here to present uh the Mayor's proposed budget from the department.

But first I want to thank uh my staff at the DPA, including the investigators, senior investigators and attorneys, uh, operational staff, uh particularly the folks that help put this uh budget together for me.

Many of those folks are here uh today with me as well, in case you have complicated questions that we can answer in depth and detail.

Uh I'm gonna try not to repeat too much of the information that's already in front of you and have been presented, but there are a couple of things that I want to highlight and make sure that we go over uh for your records.

Uh we'll start up here with what you can already see, uh, which is the summary of the budget.

Uh and the what I want to point out here, though, is that our workforce is still 30% uh below our 2021 baseline from that fiscal year.

Uh behind these numbers uh and the summation is a full investigation team that uh last year opened eight hundred and ninety-nine independent investigations.

And the reason that I'm pointing that out is because oftentimes when we present what these numbers that are asked for in these hearings, we don't articulate and explain the distinction and the difference between the allegations that come from uh the office and the cut number of complaints that come in.

And so this number of eight hundred and ninety-nine are the actual independent investigations that are completed throughout the year uh for the work, summarizing the work.

I will point out that that number is more relevant because the case load and the complaints that are coming into the office has continued to increase and escalate.

Last year it was 22% higher than it has been in the past, and this year is expected to be higher than that based on what has been coming into the office.

Uh next next slide, please.

Uh here's our mission core functions.

I'm not gonna reread all of that for you.

I presume everyone knows uh the majority of what that work is.

Uh but I did want to point out that the investigation staff, the same investigative staff uh that we have in the agency, also supports uh the sheriff's oversight work.

So it's the same staff doing that work.

That includes misconduct investigations, all of the jail oversight work uh pending the inspector general appointment.

Uh and none of the work as a reminder for the past year uh has included the inspector general because that position has not been filled.

Uh also on this page you can see uh that the SB 1421 work also is part of the work, but that transparency work we think is particularly important in both of the agencies where we're doing oversight to present the public with awareness about what the results of those investigations have been.

Uh currently we've released over fifty-six thousand pages uh of those documents.

Uh also in here is the audit work.

Again, this is the several national award-winning audits that have been produced at the agency.

Uh this year we have another one that's ongoing that I think folks are pretty excited about, and I can't wait to share with you that in uh audit when it comes out.

Uh presenting an overview of all of the license plate reader work that's being done in the city.

From the police department.

Let me be clear.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh these are our performance measures uh that have been asked for.

Uh and again, uh, there's a differentiation differentiation made between uh opening cases, allegation cases, and actual investigations.

Uh what I want to show here and point out is this 94 average day processing is a big deal.

This is the highest level of efficiency that the agency has ever been able to generate and produce in the history of the agency.

We have been at a hundred percent compliance since I've taken over the agency.

That means that not only are we not losing jurisdiction from those uh time delays, but we are now getting the cases investigated in a very efficient way.

That is what's behind the 94-day efficiency.

That's a really big deal.

It's a lot of work to do those investigations and that timely amount.

Uh, but it does reflect best practices, and I think it's significant, particularly if you compare the agency to what other similar agencies do outside of San Francisco.

Uh next slide, please.

Uh here's our operating expenses, uh, salary and fringe obviously are the bulk of the budget, and that's because the investigation with uh labor interviews, body worn camera review, evidence analysis, report writing, and legal work and processes are the majority of what we do.

Uh the mayor's office has made the uh increase here, and that's shown here.

It's a very small and modest for $779,000.

And that again is also for salary salaries to fund the investigative capacities, which I'm gonna talk about in slide eight.

Um, just I'll talk about it shortly when we uh get to it.

And those the what that will translate into are the new investigators uh to make sure that we are still in compliance with charter obligations working with an expanding police department.

And again, that's separate from the work that's going on with the sheriff's department with the exact same staff.

Next slide, please.

All right, so here you can see uh our budget allocations, the largest allocation being for labor uh labor work associated with the investigations that we do.

Uh we have a pretty lean management structure here.

Uh and you'll what I want to point out here, and then looking at this allocation of how the work gets spread out with uh the actual work done in the agency, is that this summary is less than internal affairs costs, so our investigations and outcomes are per dollar less than what the city would pay for the agencies in review to do those investigations themselves.

The outcome is less for DPA doing the investigations than internal affairs for San Francisco Police Department, and it is less than the investigative agencies doing the work internally for the sheriff's department as well.

Next slide, please.

Here's the uh workforce evaluation.

Uh this is just tracking our workforce uh with our baseline.

You can see the numbers that are in here.

Uh, there's been a slight recovery from the decline from the attrition, uh, and that uh recovery is still modest uh and very deliberate, and that's what will allow us to hire in the future.

We don't have them yet, uh, the two new SFPD investigators that we're needed to meet the charter mandates for the work that we're doing.

Uh you can see here, even in 2720 in that 2728 level in anticipation that we still remain about 16.8 positions below the 2021 year baseline uh while the caseline has while our caseload has continued to grow.

Uh the trend line is recovering, but we still have not closed the gap for the work that already exists and continues to grow.

Next slide.

And it's 12 investigators, five senior investigators, three attorneys.

That's the team that is responsible for the over 900 uh independent investigations that took place in 2025, and that structure is unchanged from the prior year.

Next slide.

Again, this is not additional funding.

This is reduced attrition that allowed us to cover the new investigations and also for us to maintain all of the costs associated with the increased jurisdiction with uh officer involved shooting costs because there are costs associated with that, but this reduced uh attrition allows us to continue that.

Next slide.

That uh concludes uh the presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions though, in case folks have any before moving on to Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I just want to clarify the staffing level, if I'm understanding right, um, is that you are 15.8 or 16.8 below.

I think it's 16.8.

Let's see.

So on page 7, there's a reference at the bottom, despite partial recovery DPA remains 15.8 positions below the you're correct, it is 15.8.

Okay.

Now, if if I'm reading this correctly, this is because the charter section 4.136 says that the staff of DPA shall consist of no fewer than one line investigator for every 150 sworn officers, sworn members of the police department.

That's the baseline we're talking about.

Yes.

Uh let me just let it go.

Oh, I supervisor.

So we're below that.

Uh no.

Um, my name's Nicole Armstrong, the CFO with DPA.

No, this is our full staff number.

Okay.

Currently, right now we have uh 12 investigators, which puts us in line.

We've done a forecasting with the mayor's office, and we identified that how many officers are being recruited.

Um, so we need two new investigators to be able to function according to the charter.

The rest of the people that we had in our department were our uh we had attorneys, we had a uh outreach coordinator, we had additional functions that we were doing in our department.

Instead, what we're doing is we have uh fewer staff members doing more roles in the office.

Um as an example, as a CFO, I'm also doing the operations.

I run the tech team, I run the payroll team, the accounting, and the um front desk clerks.

Uh so we've limited additional other ones.

The core functions are remain the the numbers as the charter for our investigators right now.

Okay, so we are in compliance then with the charter st the staffing.

The staffing numbers that the charter requires that one line investigator for every 150 sworn police officers were in compliance with.

Uh, we will be once we have those two new investigators.

And just to give context to that compliance, that compliance doesn't contemplate the other issues that the department is already doing, and particularly I'm referencing the sheriff stuff that is also taking place as well, and that's a big implication.

I know we'll talk about that next, but as she referenced, everyone is wearing several hats in the agency, including myself.

Okay, okay.

Thanks.

For the same salary too, just to be clear.

Didn't want to not miss that.

Thank you.

Uh we don't have additional questions, and thank you so much for your work.

Oh, uh Supervisor Watson.

No, I don't have questions.

I wanted to say something before he goes to the next presentation.

Absolutely.

Please.

Um, and thank you so much, Chair Chan.

Uh, I do just before we hear the presentation about the Inspector General and Sheriff's Department Oversight Board, want to raise concerns about you know the fact that since this department continues to be under staff, it raised serious questions about safety, accountability, and the capacity of our oversight system.

And as most of you know, Prop D is not just a nice to have, it was something that the voters mandated that we do here in the city and county of San Francisco.

And so I want to make sure that not only as we go through this budget process, but as we continue to try to respond to what the voters mandated that we do everything and our power on this board of supervisors to make sure that the department has what it needs.

And want to thank the Department of Police accountability for their continued work with that department, because without your work, we would not have we would not be doing anything in accordance with what the voters mandated when they pass Prop D in 2020.

So thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

I would also add to that list the transparencies, safeties, and community demands that continue uh separately for both of the agencies and both of the work, but it's a pleasure to at least articulate them so people get to see here and tie those efficiencies to the numbers and the support that comes from all of the associated agencies that uplift the work.

Thank you.

On behalf of my staff.

Thank you.

And so with that, we will go to the sheriff's inspector general.

I'm going to be even more efficient with this set here.

Uh, so I just want to tell you that I'll just I'll transition to the budget for the office of the sheriff's inspector general.

Uh, because the inspector general position is currently vacant, the department of police accountability has been managing all operations for this office.

Uh, my staff and I are effectively running two separate departments, which is why I'm presenting just to clarify the budget again today.

It's still me.

Uh in city budget records.

Uh, this office is listed as the Sheriff's Department of Accountability, or SDA, uh, while in the San Francisco Charter, uh, it's referenced as the Office of Sheriff's Inspector General or OSIG, and they are the same agency.

Uh and for context, the office was formally created in 2020 through Prop D, which was introduced by our supervisor Shama Walton, uh, and then approved by voters.

Uh, the Sheriff's Department Oversight Board appointed an inaugural inspector general in 2023.

Uh that individual began work in January of 2024, and then resigned one year later in January of 2025, leaving the inspector general position currently vacant.

Uh, since that time, although that work is being done and carried on in the office.

Uh, as you know, DPA's involvement with the office of oversight with the sheriff's office did not begin with the creation of the OSIG since 2019, under a letter of agreement with Sheriff with then Sheriff Hennessy and myself, uh, DPA has conducted administrative investigations into allegations of improper conduct by sheriff's deputies.

Uh Sheriff Miyamoto reaffirmed this commitment to independent oversight by expanding DPA's role, and I will point out uh in every year since we began doing the work in 2019, uh, the work has expanded both in jurisdiction and in scope uh since we've been at the table at the request of the sheriff's office, the public, the board, uh, and the mayor's office as well.

Both the mayor's office and the board of supervisors also asked DPA to establish to support the establishment of the newly created inspector general's office, which at that time still did not yet have a full staff and infrastructure or the systems in place to begin or continue that work in the absence of that support.

Uh in the absence of the inspector general, uh DPA has provided every essential function necessary for the OSIG to operate.

This includes investigative work, operational and technical support, budget development and management, administrative infrastructure, and staffing support for both the oversight board themselves and for the SDA.

Over the past seven years, DPA has built specialized expertise and custodial setting investigations, developed all operational workflows and reporting structures, launched an electronic public complaint portal and a customized case management system, and established a strong working partnership with the sheriff's office leadership.

As a result, uh the foundational infrastructure needed for a fully functional uh inspector general's office is already operating and already exists.

And once an inspector general is appointed and additional staff are hired, the office will be able to stand up quickly and begin operating independently with systems already in place, albeit uh more staffing and budget would be necessary.

However, this work has come with some significant challenges, as I alluded to in my previous uh conversation until earlier this year, DPA has absorbed all of these responsibilities without dedicated funding or additional investigator positions.

Even as the expectation from both the public and the city continue to increase, last year DPA reached a saturation point and had to invoke a provision in our agreement with the Sheriff's Office, allowing us to decline some of the work and the complaints when we lack the sufficient resources to investigate them responsibly.

We do appreciate that the mayor's office and this board recognize the importance of this oversight work and then approved two temporary exempt investigator positions, which we immediately filled in March.

Uh but even with these additions, the workload even currently is outpacing the available staffing.

Finally, it's important to underscore the value of civilian oversight in general.

DPA continues to demonstrate that the independent oversight is not only more credible to the community, it's absolutely more cost-effective.

Civilian investigators cost significantly less per hour than sworn sergeants and lieutenants who staff internal affairs units from the various law enforcement agencies, our independent increases public trust and shifting administrative investigations to civilian staffs, frees sworn personnel to focus on duties only peace officers can perform, which would reduce overtime and improve public safety.

In fact, other law enforcement departments have reached out to explore having DPA assist with their internal investigation investigations, in large part for these cost savings as well that are in the city family as well.

This is an additional operational reality and the context for today's budget.

I'm going to take less than a minute to just go through the slides here.

So, slide one, as you can see, is just the budget snapshot.

I know you already have these records, so I'm not going to spend a lot of time going over them again.

Slide two.

Our mission and core functions, which you already know I've alluded to, but they are included here.

Next slide.

Slide three is our minimum staffing for the board clerk and the inspector general.

That is the staffing for the office.

More funding supports the DPA work for investigations and administrative operations.

One of the positions is filled, the clerk position.

The other is vacant and in recruitment for the time being.

Next slide, please.

At the proposed level, the inspector generals must continue relying on borrowed support and cannot yet operate independently.

This is again is not about expanding beyond the mandate.

This is still about funding the uh voter mandated created entity.

Next slide, please.

Uh that concludes my presentation.

Uh DPA, I just want to add, we'll remain committed to both the transparency and the accountability for the ongoing work that we are doing with the office for the law enforcement agencies and the public that we serve.

And I'm happy to take any questions from the board.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Chan, and really just a couple of questions for a city attorney.

So the first one just is it legal for the city to continue to ignore a voter mandate and not fully fund the department.

Good afternoon, Supervisors, Deputy City Attorney Brad Rossi.

Um Supervisor Walton, I believe you're referring to a provision of the measure that provides that a certain number of investigators per sheriff's department, sheriff's employees, department should have that.

Um that provision um starts out with saying that it's subject to the budgetary and fiscal provisions of the charter.

So which means basically that the funding for those positions is subject to this process that we're going through now.

And while the voters, I think, expressed an intent for that to be the the um staffing of the department, it was subject to the budgetary process.

I mean the voters have the intent that when you call to fix the pothole, the street gets paved.

I mean, that's all part of what we do here at the Board of Supervisors.

Um, is it legal for one department to continue to provide operations for another?

Again, I think that's like ongoing and forever.

That's something that is subject to the policy decisions of the of the Board of Supervisors and the Mayor.

Thank you.

Uh, I do just want to say, you know, as as we look at this scaledo budget that we continue to have in front of us year after year, it puts a strain on the department of police accountability, it puts a strain on the oversight system, and again, there's needed administrative staff, policy personnel, and of course, staff for investigations at the very least for this part department to be fully functional.

And I just think it's a travesty that we continue to fund this department at this level because of politics.

Uh, and we're really ignoring what the voters mandated and what the voters asked for, and I don't know how we can do that in good conscience.

But again, I want to thank um the department of police accountability for their support in this work.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Thank you.

I think um if I may suggest that um for the budget and legislative analysts uh as you evaluate both the police accountability as well as the sheriff's accountability.

I think it warrants um I I think this body would love a feedback, would like to have the feedback that is should what would a fully staff um office of sheriffs accountability looks like and what would a projected um staffing level and budget uh would look like so that it's almost kind of re we're doing a reverse of what we typically would do and say, hey, you know, we don't need certain funding, we don't need certain programming, this could be shift.

I think that this is probably um one that lets um have that information for this committee to consider um for this budget.

So thank you so much for your work.

We appreciate it.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And with that, um we want to welcome um district attorney Brooke Jenkins to the chamber.

All right, we're ready to go.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, uh, members of the board.

Uh my name, obviously, is Brooke Jenkins, the San Francisco District Attorney, and I thank you for the opportunity to present the budget of the district attorney's office for the fiscal year 2026-27.

I also would like to thank the mayor's office as well as the mayor's budget office for their communication and work over the last number of months on our budget.

This budget continues to prioritize the core services that are essential to enhancing public safety in our city, services that support victims, survivors, and communities disproportionately affected by crime.

These priorities reflect the ongoing input I receive from San Franciscans across every neighborhood as I work to strengthen public safety through engagement, transparency, and listening closely to community concerns.

The resources outlined in this budget directly support our city's most urgent public safety needs.

With purpose and resolve, my office remains focused on closing open air drug markets, deterring retail theft, addressing property crimes, and reducing car break-ins.

We are committed to reducing the crimes that impact our neighborhoods and small businesses most deeply.

While fully acknowledging and understanding the financial picture locally and on the national stage, I'm becoming concerned that the resources needed to fully address these chronic and pervasive public safety issues are not being consistently made available.

Especially at a time when caseloads are at a high point since the pre-pandemic era.

For four years in a row, I have consistently made clear that additional resources are needed in order for my office to effectively fulfill its mandate to prosecute crime fully in San Francisco.

However, year after year, our requests have been denied, and we have now been informed of expected cuts to come in 2028, for which I have grave concerns.

On to my department's mission.

The mission of the District Attorney's Office is to promote public safety and ensure that outcomes in the criminal justice system are fair, just, and appropriate.

The core work of our office is also rooted in supporting victims of crime to help them heal and begin the process of putting their lives back together in the aftermath of a crime.

Lastly, it is the mission of the department to implement policies and programs that provide offenders the opportunity to rehabilitate their lives by developing innovative programs dedicated to reducing recidivism.

In fiscal year 2027, the department's 99.1 million dollar proposed budget is increasing by 2.6% or 2.5 million dollars.

This increase is largely driven by mandatory negotiated salary and fringe increases.

In fiscal year 2028, the proposed budget increases by 2.2% to 101 million dollars, a $2.2 million increase, again, largely driven by mandatory negotiated salary and fringe costs.

Taking a more detailed look at the proposed budget increase of $2.5 million for fiscal year 2027, it illustrates that the mandatory salary and fringe costs negotiated by the city are the main drivers for the overall increases at 2.8 million.

It reflects $746,000 in reductions to the leasing costs and workers' compensation work order budgets.

And it reflects a one-time adjustment to the department's special fund accounts that result in a net increase of $488,000.

The department's primary source of revenue is the general fund at 90% of total funding.

6% of the department's budget is supported by federal and state grants.

The remaining 4% of the department's budget is supported by special funds and other governmental revenue.

On the expenditure side, 80% of the department's expenditure budget is salary and fringe.

These expenditures are dedicated to the core work of the department, which is to investigate and prosecute crime as well as supporting victims of crime.

15% of the budget is work orders with other departments.

Lastly, city grant programs, non-personnel services, and materials and supplies make up the remaining 5% of the department's expenditures.

In fiscal year 2027, the department's 280.32 budgeted positions have decreased by approximately two positions.

The reduction reflects the department's reduction agreed to with the mayor's office.

In fiscal year 2028, the department's budgeted position count is 274.89, which is a 5.43 FTE less than the previous year.

This reduction is due to the mayor's reorganization initiative that has not yet been detailed.

I must be honest that a reduction of this size will impact ongoing operations.

This slide illustrates that the district attorney's budgeted staffing has been level since fiscal year 2021-2022.

The mayor's proposed staffing level for department for my department in the 2028 fiscal year is concerning, especially given caseloads currently being handled by our staff.

In our communication with the mayor's office regarding core versus discretionary programs, we conveyed that everything we do and fund is directly related to or supportive of the department's core mission.

Our units directly prosecute or investigate criminal cases, support victims of crime, seek innovative ways to reduce criminality by offering alternatives, or are a part of the support mechanism for each of the direct service units.

Although central to the department's mission of implementing responsible reforms, giving offenders the opportunity to address the root causes of criminal behavior, and developing innovative programs to serve as tools for rehabilitation, the department identified its program division as strategic and as a strategic discretionary program.

In the budget year, specific reductions to the department's budget include the elimination of the department's 0931 manager 3, which is which was our director of policy programs and grants, reductions to salary equivalent of an 1824 principal analyst, and adjustments made to the lease costs for our facility.

In the following year, salary and fringe reductions of approximately $1 million remain a concern for the department's ongoing operations.

What do these budget reductions mean?

With the elimination of the director of policy programs and grants, the department's ability to effectively engage in the development of sound policies and promote public safety that promote public safety and a fair criminal justice system will be significantly reduced.

Our ability to find outside resources for innovative programs that address the root causes of criminality and implement creative solutions to address them will be impacted.

Future proposed reductions of over 1 million dollars in attrition savings will have a direct impact on the department's ability to achieve its core mission as the department has few discretionary programs within our budget.

This slide presents the department's overall structure and how the department is organized to focus on its essential work.

All units contribute to our core mission.

This slide shows the district attorney staffing as of May 22nd, 2026.

313 full and part-time positions are filled, and we have currently 16 vacancies.

Of those 16 positions that were vacant as of May 1st, 12 have been offered to candidates.

All have accepted, two have started work, and the remaining four are at various stages of recruitment.

This slide shows an overall manager to staff ratio of one to nine.

Victims served continue to exceed 9,000 victims annually.

Both workload slides illustrate the need for the necessary resources to address the influx of cases coming into and existing in our criminal justice system.

We have consistently expressed the need for additional staffing and resources to address the ever increasing workload that my office has.

This is why I stand here concerned today that the proposed future reductions and the ongoing unfunded areas this department has had to manage are becoming a problem.

We are working in an untenable environment.

Let me just give you an example.

That is paralegal support.

With the ongoing increases in our discovery obligations, which I will get into over the next slide, for several years now, I have conveyed that my office is in desperate need of more paralegals.

We have the legal mandate, which has come down from the legislature based on the Racial Justice Act, that we are required to produce data to the defense in order for them to analyze their Racial Justice Act claims, and we have to respond to any Racial Justice Act motions that are hired.

We have not received any funding for that mandate.

We have requested 1.3 million dollars towards our general operations for things that include, as Supervisor Walton loves, our shuttle that has to take my lawyers to court each and every day because we have moved away from the Hall of Justice.

We are no longer in walking distance of the courthouse.

As well as 217,000 for the Be the Jury program, which I'm sure you're familiar with.

It's one of the only things the public defender and I stand together on, which is making sure that juror potential jurors who cannot afford to only make $15 a day for jury service and often then ask to hardship off of our juries be paid more so that they can actually engage in jury service so that we have juries that are actual reflection of the communities here in San Francisco.

As I mentioned, one of the most desperate needs that we have is enhancement of our legal support staffing.

With the rise in cases, the volume of work handled by the department's legal support staff is become has become overwhelming.

Over the course of 2025, paralegals handled 1.5 million pages that needed to be reviewed, redacted, and produced to the defense.

Downloaded and discovered 77,000 body-worn camera videos, managed 35 terabytes of other media, the equivalent of 1,000 full-length movies, and issued over 83,000 subpoenas.

It is at a point that for them is untenable.

I'll give you some more illustration on that front.

As uh police technology increases, as technology just in society increases, that means there are more sources of discovery.

We now have license plate reader cameras.

We now have drones.

We now have so many different avenues of evidence, social media accounts, you name it, that have to be that are a part of investigations that have to be produced over to the defense.

That type of discovery just keeps increasing year to year.

And so that is a part of why, again, it's imperative that for us to live up to our ethical obligation to make sure that the defense has what they are entitled to.

We have to be working nonstop to ensure that this material is reviewed, as we said, potentially redacted for confidential or sensitive information and produced to them in a timely fashion.

And so that's why I continue to emphasize the need uh for more support staff.

But at that this time, that is the end of our presentation, and I'll answer any questions you have.

Thank you.

Uh, thank you so much for your work, and thank you for your leadership.

Um, I don't see any name on the roster.

Um, we do understand it's a very difficult budgetary time.

Um, so we really thank you for doing your due diligence to see how we can make sure that you fulfill your obligation to keep our city safe at the same time and being able to help us as a city to fulfill our budgetary um and fiduciary obligations.

So thank you.

Thank you.

No, thank you.

And so with that, we will go to the police department.

Okay.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisors Chen, Walton, and Sauter.

I'm Chief Derek Lou, and I appreciate the opportunity to present the San Francisco Police Department's proposed budget for fiscal years 2027 and 2028.

I'm joined today by Assistant Chief Nicole Jones, DC Mark M, Commander McGuire, and Chief Financial Officer Kimi Wu, who are here today to help answer any questions you may have.

We're operating in a rapidly evolving environment marked by shifting crime trends, significant staffing shortages, and rising public expectations for visibility, transparency, and accountability.

Our budget presentation outlines how we are adapting to these pressures through strategic investments in hiring, technology, and organizational reform.

Our budget is guided by four strategic priorities.

One, to grow to full staffing, two, to equip officers effectively, three, enhance public safety and street conditions, and four, strengthen technology technological infrastructure.

This slide provides year-to-date comparisons of violent crimes and property crime from January through May.

Most categories for violent crimes have shown significant improvement.

The overall decrease compared to 2025 year to date is nearly 11%.

For property crimes, the overall decrease compared to 2025 is over 24%.

To address persistent problem areas, we have leveraged the real-time investigation center, or Arctic, to identify patterns, guide deployments, and disrupt organized networks.

To strengthen recruitment, we have advanced three major strategies focused on process improvements, applicant engagement, and expanded marketing efforts.

Building on the momentum from last year, we have implemented the following.

Enhancing recruitment infrastructure, which includes hiring full-time background investigators, streamlining applicant outreach and engagement, and conducting targeted analysis of candidate success rates, expanding and improving applicant engagement.

That's achieved by hosting organized consolidated hiring events, offering prep sessions for both the written exam and the physical agility tests, and expanding the variety of recruitment events.

We've strengthened media and marketing efforts by promoting the department's highly competitive wages and pension benefits, enhancing our online hiring presence, and launching targeted billboarded advertising and social media campaigns.

Together, these strategies aim to modernize the recruitment process, improve applicant experience, and ensure we continue to attract high-quality candidates.

As a result of our expanded recruitment strategies, we are on track to receive 10,000 applications by the end of the year, a remarkable increase compared to trends from the last three years.

As of June 1st, we have already received more than 3,800 applications.

Increasing to 901 million in fiscal year 28.

The primary driver of this increase is growth in general fund costs, largely tied to personnel expenses such as salaries, benefits, and overtime needed to maintain essential public safety services.

The department has identified identified several reductions for the upcoming fiscal years.

Elimination of 33 FTE positions, primarily within the information technology division, and administrative support roles, as well as four civilian layoffs across administrative and field operations divisions.

Despite these adjustments, the proposed budget continues to prioritize staffing, operational readiness, and public safety outcomes.

The total general fund expenditure for upcoming fiscal year is $765.3 million, and more than 90% of the general fund is dedicated to personnel costs.

Our non-general fund budget accounts for 13% of the total SFPD budget or 117.3 million.

This portion includes funding for the airport bureau police's airport bureaus, personnel, as well as various federal and state grants that support specialized programs and operations.

City sworn staffing.

Staffing analysis shows we need approximately 2,257 full-duty sworn officers to meet current operational demands.

As of May 2026, we have 1,618 officers, a deficit of over 600 officers.

For the second consecutive year, we are seeing an increase in city sworn staffing, an encouraging trend driven by improved recruitment, hiring, and retention.

Moving to our organizational chart, this updated executive chart reflects our leadership structure as of June 1, 2026.

Five bureaus report directly to the chief, and four divisions report to the assistant chief.

Approximately 4% of our civilian professional staff, staff service in management roles, ensuring appropriate leadership capacity across administrative and support functions.

A full position list is available as a supplemental document.

This concludes our presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you so much, Chair Channel.

Thank you, Chief Liu.

Um, what did you forecast for overtime in this budget?

So for the overtime, our budget has appropriated 72 million in overtime.

How does that compare to last year?

So this current fiscal year, we are projected to be at approximately 96 million.

So you are for under budgeting 20 something million dollars.

And you do this every year.

I mean, is there some kind of rule that I'm not aware of that says you just have to do a supplemental every year?

Like why why do we do this every single year?

I mean, whoever wants to answer.

I'm happy to answer.

Thank you.

Um, Sophia Kittler for the Mayor's Budget Office.

So last year you'll recall, we they had actually um in the previous years, we had been budgeting around 35 to 40 million dollars in overtime.

And last year we made an effort to kind of true up so that we would not continuously come back for a general fund supplemental.

So in last year's budget, we raised overtime from in the 30 million dollar-ish range to the 70-ish million dollar range.

Um there was a lot of extra overtime this year because of the number of special events in particular.

I think you know, specifically, and and um Ms.

Wu has has much better numbers on these than I, but uh like the Super Bowl alone was around eight million dollars.

Um and so we believe that with with kind of tighter controls and like new thinking about scheduling and the continued improvements that we are showing on hiring, that we can continue to constrain overtime to reasonable levels.

One thing we did this year, as much as they did we we projected and we are projected to spend in the 90s on overtime, we did not need a general supplemental, and that is a testament to the leadership at the department and to the financial controls um that Ms.

Boo has has put in place, but we have been able to keep that within the amount of salary savings um that we have accrued from from um on the police side and moving that over.

And so one thing that we see is as we continue to hire up, hopefully we will need less overtime.

Um, but while we do not have full staffing, we do move uh unused salary dollars over to the overtime bucket in the overtime supplemental, but we did not request uh the department did not request a general fund supplemental this year.

Well, with all due respect, Director Kittler.

We had the same conversation last year about what was forecasted and what is thought to be actual.

So separate from the debate about how much overtime the department has every year, why do why does the department not attempt to forecast and put in the budget exactly what I think they will spend?

I think that that's an excellent question, supervisor, and I will let them speak for themselves.

But from the budget office, who very much um you know, I think they have a request, and then and then we have what we are willing to budget on their behalf, and so I think that they will have requested more money.

Um you may remember that in last year's budget, we actually had assumed a certain amount of savings in year two overtime that we did not think we were going to get.

So we actually did increase over base budget, not to get too technical.

We increased their assumptions on overtime over base budget this year.

Um, and the one of the ways we forecasted was we looked at the amount of overtime that they have been needing every pay period since the Super Bowl, right?

So pre-Super Bowl, there was a big surge during the holidays, there was a big surge of special events, and since the Super Bowl, they have been um working on very tight financial controls, looking at that and annualizing um what they have been using.

We believe we are at the correct um overtime requirement.

We that is how we are forecasting it.

We we know we do not get a right.

This is an art not a science, but I think we we believe we would rather um budget close to and be slightly off rather than greatly over budget.

Yeah, Supervisor, for for our part, I would say the department did request what we thought would be appropriate.

We obviously didn't didn't get there, but we are sympathetic to the fact that a lot of people are in that same boat.

So um we have, as Director Kittler said, we have maintained um or instituted a lot of controls and systems that we think have helped us along the way.

Um, and our intention is to stay within the constraints that that we we've been given.

Obviously, there's a discrepancy between what PD feels and what the mayor's office feels.

And we haven't been able to do that not just with this department, but most certainly with this department, and that is frustrating.

Thank you, Chief.

Thank you, and Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And I will say I do share the frustration of my colleagues, Supervisor Walton, about overtime.

And even being, you know, someone I listen, I'm never gonna vote against a supplemental for police overtime because the alternative is unthinkable, but I'm not proud of it that we have su uh an understaffing issue that requires us to use mandatory overtime just to keep our heads above water.

My hope is that we will get, I think right now, judging from I know there's a couple ways of measuring it, but it's about 700 officers short if we're looking at full duty.

Um and even as we're we did something, if I'm understanding correctly, last year for the first time in several years, we hired more cops than we lost.

Um, but the number of officers that uh of the charter mandated recommendation uh based on the methodology we all agreed to has now gone up that the minimum that the recommended staffing level is now 2257.

Um so we and and I I think I I also share the frustration that it feels to me like we there is a certain sort of like uh I don't know theater of we we're holding things that we know like positions that we think are gonna be because we're gonna need that money for overtime, but it's not really transparent to us.

Um so I it is something over the long term that I hope um we do address.

I had asked uh the question that I was gonna ask is about civilianization.

So I I had asked um Chief Crispin about this also, but I want to ask you as well, Chief.

Um when we lay when when there are layoffs of civilians, it seems to me if we're if there are any civilian layoffs that involve work that then now a sworn officer or uniformed firefighter has to do, it's defeating the purpose of the layoff.

In other words, you know, we're trying to do everything we can to staff up, but I I just wonder uh if we're giving thought to civilian roles that um are now having to be filled by sworn folks.

So maybe you can answer that.

Supervisor you and I I believe have talked about this many times.

We are acutely aware of the positions that can be civilianized, and we're doing our best to get to it as we can.

Understood that um layoff seems counterintuitive to that mission, but this is where we're at, and we will continue to do the best we can with what we have to work with.

Um is there some element of sworn staffing assuming some of these duties?

Yes, but we're trying to mitigate that and minimize it as much as possible.

Okay.

Um and I think the only other thing I would just say, and I know that I've talked to the chief about this.

I I did want to get um just an answer to sort of the hypothetical.

I think I've got it sort of like ballpark, but it would be nice to get a clear numbers.

Let's say we could wave a magic wand and hire the 700 plus officers that we need to get to full staffing in a year.

How much would it cost us?

Because I think the answer, if I if I believe if if I understand the answer, it's it's not much more than we're paying now because of all the overtime, which is kind of infuriating when we consider that we're using taxpayer dollars more taxpayer dollars for less policing, just because we need something that's that's more ambitious to get to a fully staffed police department.

But maybe you've got a ballpark, but at some point I would love to see the numbers on that.

Sure.

If we were to fill every position sworn member, it would be over 505 million dollars.

Okay.

Okay.

Okay.

So um thirty one million dollars is what roughly thirty or thirty um thirty one to thirty five million dollars is what we have budgeted last year for one fiscal year.

Right?

One fiscal year about roughly 35 million dollars for overtime.

So if you get there, um that was what we had budgeted in fiscal twenty-five last year.

This year we had budgeted in the 70s.

And this year how much?

It was I believe seventy-five, seventy-two, seventy-five.

Yes, correct.

Okay.

And then so, and that is because now we're uh lesson learned from, you know, the 25-26 fiscal year inclusive of Super Bowl.

Um now we anticipating FIFA and potentially other events, and so we say for the 2627, now we're anticipating about 73 million dollars per fiscal year for overtime.

Yes, we kept overtime about flats.

Um, I would like to know that the vast majority of the FIFA um World Cup is in the current fiscal year.

In the current fiscal year as twenty-five-26.

Yes, correct.

I see because we are currently in June, it is thirty, what, thirty-nine days long?

Uh so it will be kind of like 10 days into the new fiscal year.

In your interim.

When we wrap up, yeah, exactly.

Understood.

So um, but then I think Miss Wool, you answered the question very definitively with a five hundred and fifty million um salary.

Can you walk me through?

Yes, that's five hundred and five million if we were to fully, if it was full staff of all sworn, yeah, and that is on top of your existing eight hundred something million.

No, okay.

That it is inclusive of that, so it would be a essentially of the eight hundred and eighty-one million, that includes non-general fund source.

764 million approximately is general fund.

And so to fund the entire fill every sworn position that we have, it would be 505 million of that.

Right now, you have eight hundred and eighty-two.

Well, let's just say if I may round it up, eight hundred and eighty-three million dollars uh of your total budget, out of which you have about like right on the spot, like six fifteen plus one forty-seven, so I don't know, seven hundred and twenty-two million dollars, that is for your salary and people.

So, the general fund portion for just personnel costs is approximately six hundred and forty-four million, and that includes the overtime is in that amount, and so if we were to fully fund it of the six hundred and forty-four million, the entire five hundred and five million would be for personnel for sworn only, so we would not have enough funding if they were all filled, so essentially some of the the savings from the vacancies is paying for the overtime.

If they were all filled, yes, overtime would be reduced.

But right now you have more than a six hundred million dollars in salary, and because that covers both the sworn and civilian professional staff.

So you're about so you're about like a hundred something million dollars off if you were to fully fund sworn officers, or 200 million.

It would depend on the t actual cost for we have to factor in the civilian professional staff actual cost.

Sure.

And then so I think the question, right?

The question is that then what is the difference between, you know, right now you're sworn, you're roughly about 600 something million for your sworn, and if you were fully fund your sworn officers, yes, I get the what you're trying to break down.

However, to get to full duty sworn, it will take at least you know upwards of 10 years.

So we're nowhere near there based off of you know the numbers that we are seeing from attrition and the net sworn.

And I think the question was that we get what I get, I'm looking at the numbers right now.

The numbers is what the number is right now, and out of which that you have about 90, well, 73 million dollars per fiscal year that is specifically now you set aside for overtime.

The question by Vice Chair Dorsey, and what I'm trying to get at is then the discrepancy between the nine of the 73 million dollars that you have set aside for full time versus should you be fully staffed at the staffing level that is indicated by request or report or mandate.

What is the discrepancy approximately?

And you're saying approximately is 550 million dollars to fully fund and pay for the full sworn is 505 million approximately, yes.

And the difference would be we need to calculate the amount for the civilians to see if the 644 million in the budget is enough to cover that.

However, we will not be able to get to full duty sworn.

So even if we were just to factor that in, we wouldn't be able to fill 600 sworn staff by next fiscal year.

So the hypothetical in that sense is not going to you can't calculate it in the one fiscal year.

Uh to add to that, I think um I do not have these numbers at hand, and I don't imagine they do either, but we can absolutely look at what we are currently spending on an annual basis just on salary and fringe for sworn.

Um 505 is the if we had everybody, and so back out kind of what the difference of that is, um, how much we would save there and compare that to what we think a projected overtime change would be.

I imagine overtime would not go away.

Um so we would probably we would have to kind of do a comparison there.

We get we would love to bring you those numbers for next week or at you know at your pleasure, but we don't have over the weekend, yeah.

Yeah, and Chair Chan, just to simplify, so with the deficit, our deficit I'm pretty sure is almost exactly 650 sworn officers at this moment.

The more that we can reduce that deficit for the increases is the less overtime we will have to use.

So I anticipate that where we're at, you know, the low 70s and overtime right now.

Should we get, you know, incrementally higher and higher in staffing, like we will be, I think far closer to that 40 million dollar mark, 30 million dollar mark than we have.

And I think that that's I'm not sure if that's exactly where you were trying to get at, but um there it is a win for the department uh to have more of these positions filled, and it's more cost effective for the city.

There'll be more policing to supervisor Dursey's point at a lower cost.

I I had a different point that actually I'm trying to get at, but I think I wanted to sort out the math a bit more.

I appreciate and would like to have that information.

What I'm really trying to get at though is Chief, um uh that I look forward to seeing now that I don't think you've been as our chief for more than a year yet.

No.

And this is your first budget.

What I look forward to seeing is a vision under your leadership to articulate with the understanding that you know, as indicated as all we have understood is that to meet a goal, and I have questioned, I'm going to start questioning the premise of that study and hear me out step by step.

And is that at some point I think that the question with your vision and your leadership and your understanding about what is the best in policing and keeping the city safe, and with the evolution of technology and what we're learning at Arctic, and the fact that the premise of the studies, I in my opinion, does not actually include the change of technology, the automated license plates reader, the art, the Arctic that you're dealing with, the technology, the usage of drone, all these that actually have come now as we continue to make progress and the potential of using automatic like transcription or transcribing, you know, your body camera or your report, it seems like there are technology that is becoming available to you that at some point about the level of staffing and the number of officers that you may end up needing to meet the vision of public safety may change.

And I'm asking a vision and a thought into the staffing study that actually also incorporate into those technology and vision and tools that maybe eventually is not so much about um it it is sort of this balancing act between staffing over time and then utilizations of technology that may change the number of your mandate.

And to your point, Chair Chan, I think we're gonna see that bear out in the next staffing study.

So our drone is first responders program is relatively new.

I don't want to call it brand new, but relatively new licensed plate readers, etc.

So our staffing study is based on actual workload analysis from the amount of time our our officers are spending in the field.

So what we would hope to see, to your point, is in the next two years that the data is going to reflect that there was less um officer hours needed out in the field because we were able to do things in different ways.

And so instead of four people having to respond to that call for service, we were able to put the drone up, and that reduced the workload.

So we're hopeful, I think as you are, that we will have that data, and we will begin making good assessments of the impact of that technology.

Um one of the I would say blessing and a curse that we have to do this study every two years, is that we are able to account for the changes in the environment, and I do believe we'll see the tech the technology impact.

Great, and then I think that's what I'm looking forward to to see the utilization of technology and that be able to again reevaluate over time, reevaluate staffing mandate uh accordingly, and that to adjust your budget accordingly.

Um, so with that supervisor chim.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Uh, thank you, Chief Lou for and the team for your presentation and thank you for the leadership and the good work of keeping San Francisco safe.

Um, I'm because there's a great momentum across all the law enforcement department that we our recruitment rate is up.

So, what is our recruitment goal for 2627?

So we have um we have we're hope we're on pace for over 10,000 applications, which is huge compared to what we've had last few years.

Um by the end of the year, we're hoping to go net positive about 38 officers by year end 2026.

So uh while that doesn't seem like a huge number, it's it's it is a big number for us relative to what it's been in the past.

Right.

And then I'm coming back to a little bit about the number, uh, the 73 million dollars over time, does that account into like in the next six months?

I would say we have 38 officers graduating, and then we'll have 36, 38 more officers that is on a regular basis that you can use for like uh regular time.

Um, and then on top of that, it's we are also doing so well with recruiting conferences back to San Francisco and tourism.

How would that number then uh change your overtime?

I know 38 officers is not a huge number, but would that still have some impact into your overtime projected overtime?

Yeah, I mean, speaking broadly, every new officer that we net positive impacts our overtime bottom line in a positive manner or negatively, I guess, right?

Helps us.

Um that's that's something that we look forward to.

Um, but I would just say that in terms of overtime.

I mean, to Director Wu's point, we we are we aren't uh adding enough people quickly enough.

We still need to rely on overtime.

There's a lot of factors with over we have a huge demand due to the drug markets, violent crime, uh no known events.

Um, even though they're known events, there are different factors that go into the overtime.

Like, for example, I think New Year's Eve is on a Friday uh in 2027.

So that's additional people, right?

Because there's um, and then we there are unknowns as well with events because we don't know how well the niners are gonna do.

We don't know how the giants are gonna do, the warriors.

So those are all unknowns.

First amendment, uh that's that's a big expenditure for us, but you just don't know because we it depends on what the what local, national, global events look like.

So those are all things that we can't necessarily predict for.

Great, thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

I just wanted to correct Chief Lou.

Uh, we do know how the matters are gonna do next year.

Sorry, sir.

Um, thank you.

Um, and uh thank you for your work.

Uh I think that this is gonna be a continual conversation in the sense where let's get a little bit more information about um your overtime spending uh as well as the um fully staffing level to answer uh vice chair Dorsey's question, kind of help this body to understand in projection of where your budget is actually going.

Um, and so if it's every two years of the staff staffing study, so you're gonna have one March 2027, correct?

Yes, it's every uh uh every two years on the odd year.

And so here's my uh my plea to this body to this budget committee as well to um to you, and I believe that we did put a control in for you to have a quarterly report of your overtime, and I believe we're gonna continue with that quarterly report uh of your overtime spending um in this upcoming uh fiscal year, and I'm looking around my colleagues and to make sure everybody remember because I won't like I will not be your chair, but I wanted to make sure this committee will continue to um have a quarterly report from you on your overtime spending, and that uh I want to urge you that before your completion of uh your staffing uh report in March.

Uh, I want to urge you to communicate with this body with the committee, um maybe perhaps a draft uh staffing report, allowing this body to be able to communicate together and figuring out what your future staffing plan would look like.

Um, and I absolutely urge you to incorporate the technology that you currently have.

Um I know that we're gonna have more conversation about Arctic and uh the future of Arctic and utilization of Arctic, and I again wanted to urge all of you in your budget that you inclusive of your capital planning uh along with your staffing plan and be a bit more thoughtful and comprehensive about where where the department is heading, and I think that you're at a critical juncture and absolutely to you, Chief Lou, for your leadership of guiding guiding the department through this.

Um, so with that, thank you uh for being here today, and thank you so much for your work.

Okay, so I think that uh we will now go to public.

I believe this is the last city departments for presentation today, and we will go to public comment and as a reminder that we have indicated at the beginning of today's meeting that this is limited to one minute for public comment.

Mr.

Clay.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for the items one through three in our uh consideration for the mayor's proposed budget with a particular focus on the departments that are presented today, which were the city attorney superior court emergency management, juvenile and adult probation, public defender, fire department, sheriff's department, um, department of police accountability, the Office of the Sheriff's Inspector General, District Attorney, and Police Department.

And as declared in the beginning of the meeting, we are limiting public comment to one minute today.

And with that, first speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Bobby Stein.

You look, you're limiting it to one minute, so now I'm gonna talk really fast.

Uh I am a San Francisco pretrial diversion board member, but long before I was a board member, I was a criminal defense attorney.

When I first started out as a criminal defense attorney, I quickly learned who could be trusted to assist my clients in a meaningful way.

Pre-trial diversion could be counted on to help shepherd my clients through the system and help them to meet their responsibilities.

I later become became a law professor, and I ran a clinical program at a law school where my students represented criminal defendants that would have otherwise been represented by the public defender's office.

My students too enjoyed the same success with pretrial diversion that I had experienced in my solo career.

I can tell you that transferring pretrial services to adult probation is a bad idea for many reasons, not the least of which is valid perception.

But thank you much, Bobby Stein for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, thank you.

My name is Janille Miller.

Um I'm not only a client of pretrial housing, but I'm also a survivor of a very violent crime.

Um I have had no luck with housing since this violent crime.

Um, of all the different agencies that are supposed to help victims like me, nobody was able to put me in a place, not one.

And there also wasn't a case work or follow-up.

If I needed somebody on the weekend, forget it.

I couldn't have them.

Thanks to pretrial, I just got housed yesterday and signed my lease.

Please do not shut this place down.

They're amazing.

We need this kind of place because without this, the city will be overrun with violence, crime.

Nobody ever wants to go to their probation officers, so why are they gonna go to the probation officers to get housing?

More crime will continue.

Please please don't shut them down.

And I just I can't plead that enough.

Thanks to Ms.

Teresa, my housing navigator.

I am a house person.

But thank you much to Neil Miller for addressing this committee.

And before I call the next speaker, um, we do only have one minute to hear uh testimony given to this committee, and so we should be able to hear that without applause, just so we can hear the messages that you're giving this committee.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Hi, um, hello, my name is Chris Babinsky.

Um, I just wanted to thank uh the courts and thank uh this program right here uh they helped me redirect my life.

I've changed my life.

I also got placed in the housing due to Miss Teresa and her staff members, and I just want to say I couldn't think this program more uh I'm three years sober now and I'm I'm doing great.

And I just graduated collaborative court as well, and uh expunged most of my record, and I just it was all because of this program right here.

I heard if you guys shut them down, I feel bad.

And uh please don't.

I mean, thank you so much.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Chris Bavinsky, next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Brandy Bowen.

I'm with Coleman Advocates for Children and Youth.

We are deeply concerned about the proposal to dismantle SF pretrial and the continued underinvestment in the public defender's office.

Together, these decisions tip the scales away from justice prevention and true public safety and toward a system that is prioritizing policing and prosecution.

SF pretrial is a 50-year-old, trusted, tried and true model that cannot be replicated within an adult probation setting.

The public's defender's office is also facing a workload crisis, which means our right to meaningful representation is at risk.

If there is money to expand government bureaucracy and police overtime, there should be money to ensure every person has meaningful representation and diversion strategies that are community-based.

Thank you for your comments.

I want to welcome Supervisor Fuhrer who's also our former budget committee chair and offer the floor privilege to Supervisor Fieber.

Thank you very much.

Before we start my time, Mr.

Clerk Carroll, I am firmly requesting that Chair Chan allow me one minute, 30 seconds.

I have a retainer in my mouth, which I am not used to.

It's a new retainer.

Supervisor, you are offered the floor privilege.

You have no time limits.

Okay, a perk.

So good afternoon, everyone.

I am Sandra Lee Fewer, and I have great empathy for all of you.

And I had as I have sat in many of these hearings when I serve on the budget committee and on the board.

I am here today as a member of the board of San Francisco pretrial to request to you to uphold the contract of San Francisco pretrial and reject the proposal to create a pretrial department in adult probation.

It is fiscally irresponsible to increase the budget of adult probation by 12 million dollars to create a new department that duplicates exactly what San Francisco pretrial has been doing for 50 years and continues to do at a much lower cost than if a city department were to run it.

Fifty years ago, San Francisco created this unique and powerful collaboration between law enforcement and the courts, recognizing that we can do it differently here and we can do better.

That people are innocent until they are found guilty, and that in an arrest doesn't mean you should lose your job, housing, and your family while you wait for your trial date.

Only 12% of the people who are currently incarcerated will ever be sentenced to jail.

They are simply there awaiting a trial date.

San Francisco pretrial on the court's referral provides case management to ensure clients do not re-offend while awaiting trial and that they show up for the court date.

San Francisco pretrial serves 2,000 clients and has over 100 employees, and the city's contract is for 7.5 million dollars annually.

And from previous testimony, we have heard budgets of almost 96 million dollars for overtime.

We are talking about serving 2,000 San Francisco residents for 7.5 million dollars annually.

For example, the Department of Emergency Management.

We can stop this now.

You can stop this now, and I know you can because I have sat in your seat.

You are the budget committee on the grounds of sound fiscal management.

Reject the proposal to increase adult probation's budget by 12 million dollars and uphold the contract of San Francisco pretrial services.

Fifty years ago, San Francisco had the foresight to say we can do better for folks who are just as involved and for our city.

And we have been doing that for 50 years.

If you choose to dismantle and destroy that now, you will never get it back.

And in doing so, you destroy a lasting vestige of what makes us such a great city.

Thank you.

And thank you, Chan, for that extra time.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, BOE members.

My name is Rachel Jones, and I'm the Youth Justice Director at Coleman Advocates.

I'm also a SF native and San Francisco truly raise me.

I'm a servant of the people and a student of Reverend Brown, Jack Jacoa.

And of course, my own Thea Mila Valdez, who historically created the mayor's citizens assistant team.

And I want to acknowledge the sheriff for being fair in his report about pretrial and the importance of the environmental and societal harm that will happen if we move too quickly without an acute uh digestion of what impacts our city will have to hold.

Community trust, humanity rights, community safety, education and investment are the more most important for marginalized, which equals public safety.

When we talk about the deficit, we do not hand out raises, unlimited overtimes while cutting education, community organizations, and now our last resort, our public defender's office, and our pretrial.

What Martin Luther King said, if we don't stop to help people, speaker's time is concluded.

What will happen if we don't stop?

If we do stop, thank you.

Thank you.

Let's have the next speaker, please.

Uh good afternoon.

My name is Teddy Knoppley, and I live in San Francisco District 8.

I'm speaking today as a law student deeply concerned about the underfunding of the San Francisco Public Defender's Office.

As a law student, I understand the importance of having good representation.

And the San Francisco Public Defender's Office provides amazing representation.

But as the police department has increased arrests and the district attorney's office has increased their caseload, it's almost impossible for the public defender's office to sustain their caseload at their current budget, as most attorneys at the office work between 50 and 75 hours a week.

The overburdening of the public defender's office is significant, as this is an important line of defense for our most vulnerable neighbors, black, brown, immigrant, and low income residents who are over policed and overburdened.

And unlike police or sheriff deputies, public defender attorneys cannot receive overtime pay.

I'm asking you to make a moral and practical investment.

Give the public defender's office the resources it needs to continue to serve our communities.

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

My name is Leelin Jong, and I'm a law student in San Francisco and a resident of District 3.

I'm speaking today about what I've seen with my own two eyes.

For the past two summers, as a volunteer at the public defender's office, I've been speaking with clients, meeting with them and helping make sure that their constitutional rights are protected.

Just this morning alone, I was with my supervising attorney in eight different courtrooms, meeting with eight different clients at the Hall of Justice.

On average, we could only spend five minutes with each client.

And this is the reality every day.

And what I learned today is that the police officer overtime budget is more than the entire budget of the public defender's office and the pretrial project combined.

That is grossly unfair and unsustainable.

I urge you to increase funding for the public defender's office and the pretrial project so that we can fulfill our constitutional duty to represent people who can't afford an attorney.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

All right.

Happy Friday.

I'm Jessica Pessico, MSNRN, and qualified candidate for district head supervisor.

Budgets are a moral document.

They show our who our city protects.

Don't destroy SF pretrial by handling it to adult probation.

Look at all the shirts in this room supporting it.

Meanwhile, the sheriff wants 14 million dollars and more overtime.

The police department blows through 7 million 73 million dollar budget every year and overtime.

While asking for a 70 million dollar raise and eight million dollars for the Super Bowl events in Daily City and San Jose.

As a nurse, I know chronic overtime means burnout.

Burnout causes of adverse events, requiring require quarterly reports for overtime.

Fix hiring instead.

All of this prevention program sits on the chopping block.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments.

So have the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Riva Salman, and I am a law student and resident of San Francisco's District 6.

I'm here today in support of San Francisco Public Defender's Office and SF pretrial and other community-based organizations that serve the vulnerable people of San Francisco.

The presumption of innocence is a foundational legal principle on which our community is formed.

And offices like the SF Public Defenders and Pretrial Services ensures that every individual, no matter their socioeconomic status, is given this protection.

Within the last three years, the police have increased arrests by 25%, and the DA has increased the number of cases charged by 31.

Because of this, public defenders now carry the highest caseloads of any office in the entire Bay Area.

This means that at times attorneys cannot give clients the resource the time and resources that they have a constitutional right to.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Louise Stivers, and I'm a law student and resident in San Francisco District 6.

As we just heard, the police are proposing to spend $73 million on overtime alone.

But I'm here to urge the city to fund services that actually make San Francisco safer from youth programming, food security, and public defender services that low-income communities rely on.

These services make our community safer by protecting the most vulnerable among us.

Instead of putting millions more into carcel agencies, we must invest in what reduces harm and prevents people from falling through the cracks.

In order to make our community safer, we must fund public defense.

I've seen firsthand how the community in San Francisco is struggling, especially with vicious cycles of generational poverty and addiction.

Funding public defense is not just providing legal services to the community, but it is also a way to break cycles of poverty, trauma, and addiction.

We may need to may also need to maintain the services provided by SF pretrial.

This is essential to keep people housed, employed, and stable.

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Cole Becker, and I live, work, and go to law school in San Francisco District 6.

I had prepared a statement on all the reasons to keep funding the public defender's office and pretrial diversion, but hearing Brooke Jenkins' presentation on the DA budget just now made me feel that the best way to do that is to tell you why the DA's office is wasting the money that you appropriate to them every single year.

The public defender's office wins over 50% of cases the DA brings each year because of the current DA policy of refusing to drop charges or offer reasonable pleas, even on clear loser cases.

Most other places, the public defender only wins 10 to 20% of the time.

The desire to appear tough on crime results in DAs and PDs battling on cases that should have never been filed.

The DA is wasting not just their own resources, but the public defenders' resources too.

How can you reward this waste with even more appropriations?

They already get 64% more funding than the public defenders who have no choice but to defend everyday people against the DA's frivolous charges.

The PD needs the budget to face the DA's waste more than the DA needs more money to win.

So the next speaker, please.

We get in trouble for spending seven dollars on water for participants in programs.

It's kind of ridiculous.

My name's Jose Hernandez.

I'm the program director for God is in Second Chance Youth Program and Tattoo Removal Clinic.

I'm here to advocate for SF pretrial.

They have been amazing asset who we've had the privilege to work with.

Their certificates managers have been open, clear, and extremely communicative.

They are supportive community members who are here to help rehabilitate, guide, and help keep people accountable in ways that transform uh people's lives.

This is community at work, SF pretrial along with community nonprofits in San Francisco have helped this SF administration claim the lowering crime rates all these years.

SF pretrial has the experience, it's cost effective, and does this job efficiently.

Handing over the funds to adult probation will be less efficient and create bigger government opposite of what this current administration wishes to do.

And it's your decision to cut pretrial and not and your decision if you buckle to conservative judges pressuring you to cut this program.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name's Clara James.

I am a program manager at pretrial diversion.

I've worked there for about two and a half years.

I also did in custody case management before that.

Anybody you ask at pretrial, anybody that comes into the door will tell you that pretrial is not just a program, it's a community.

It's that gives people their humanity back when the system has stripped it away from them time and time again.

People who are treated like a case number, a burden to be dealt with.

We listen to their stories, their fears, their needs, their goals.

We show them that we see them and their soul, human to human.

We show up in ways probation never could or would.

In court when they're scared, escorting them to the benefits office when they need advocacy.

This is public safety.

Prevention is public safety.

It is not just reacting.

It's healing, housing, health care, feeling like your community actually cares about you.

And not just showing compliance on a piece of paper.

Compliance and court appearance come naturally when people feel safe and when they call when they need to be heard.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hey, good afternoon.

My name is Francia, and I'll be speaking for a client who wasn't able to be here today.

Good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing me to share a few words.

After returning home last year, following 27 years in state prison, I came to SF Pre-trial and met with housing and ECM.

From day one, their support in my reentry process was above and beyond.

My housing case manager took the time to understand my interests regarding employment and housing.

And she was incredibly patient in helping me navigate technology and use my phone.

After six months of planning, it led to my placement in an SRO.

Through their guidance and a lot of hard work, I have stabilized my life here in the city and county of San Francisco.

Without the specific support of pretrial, I would not be here where I am today.

I now work full-time, maintain my own bank account, have a car, live in my own as a tax-paying citizen.

I'm also proud to give back to my community.

I am forever grateful for the commitment of these two strong women who have given so much of themselves to their work.

Thank you for keeping the candle lit for those in need of hope.

God bless Anthony Tolentino.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Khalis Street.

I just want to clarify a couple things that was said by probation as far as a burden.

Um I love the job I do.

I believe that we're all here because we love the job we do.

We would never use words like burden to pertain to anything that we are doing, however long we work.

That's something that we would never say as pretrial diversion.

I also want to say that this should not be happening.

This is out of control.

Literally, like it, if if it wasn't for pretrial diversion, half of the individuals that we serve will be back in jail, like literally fighting for their lies because all we see them as is something as a number, and they have names.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Martina Bowie, and I'm the COO at SF pretrial.

You all know the story of the Emperor with no clothes.

The court's plan to transfer pretrial services to adult probation is that Emperor.

And the Board of Supervisors, you cannot afford to be caught pretending otherwise.

There is no viable plan.

They have not accounted for a basic operational reality.

SF pretrial cannot simply limp along while the court and adult probation try to get their act together.

Staff will leave the agency, will falter, and clients will fall through the cracks.

Justice will be compromised.

That is not reform, that is abandonment.

SF pretrial has served this city for 50 years, and despite being chronically underfunded, we have grown our impact because we know this work and we know we can do it well.

The decision, this decision was made without us, without our clients, and without the community at the table.

Ask yourself, why won't the court invite us to that table?

Thank you for your comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Leah McGeever, and I second all of the comments in support of SF uh pretrial.

Um, just the other day in the news, uh, I read that nine women held in SF County jail filed a class action lawsuits against the city, sheriff's department, and city officials providing health services in the jail for horrible conditions, one of which was consistent.

They were demanding consistent access to sunlight.

Um, and then if I'm understanding this correctly, the sheriff's department is asking for overtime allowances to de-appropriate certain funds for their overtime.

Uh, again, if I'm understanding this correctly, one of those deappropriated funds is approximately 420,000 that's meant to go to recreation to unfiltered sunlight.

So these overtime requests aren't harmless either.

This whole system of jailing and and how you do it and how you pay for it, et cetera, and the conditions is wrong and corrupt.

And do not worsen all of this injustice and anguish by canceling SF pretrial, continue SF pretrial.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Um, hello.

Sorry, I'm a bit nervous.

I've actually never given public comment.

I'm very pleased to be here.

I'm Mary O'Richter.

I'm a district three resident.

Um, I do urge all of you to deny adult probations 12.7 million dollar request to take over pretrial services and to preserve SF pretrial.

I grew up in Texas, so I've seen firsthand that punitive law enforcement-led models do not reduce crime.

They may feel good in the moment, but ultimately they do not make our communities safer.

And putting legally innocent people under armed surveillance creates both expensive and uh dysfunctional loop.

SF pretrial has served the city for 50 years.

They have a 96% court appearance rate, and 1,800 people kept out of jail daily for eight million dollars a year.

Spending 12.7 million to replace it with a worse system makes no sense.

Please deny the request, and thank you all for your service to San Francisco.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, Regina Eastlos, D1, volunteer with the ACLU Northern California chapter here supporting funding the public defender's office for all the reasons that have been given.

However, let's remember that there is a right to defense.

It's not a wish list, it's not a nice to have.

This is a right, and the public defender's office is a critical pillar that upholds this constitutional right.

So I don't even understand why we're having a discussion or thinking there's a choice about adequate funding.

There's only one right thing to do, fund them, and don't diminish the rights of the citizenry.

As for pretrial services, similarly, the adult probation department does not share the same mandate.

It doesn't have the level of efficacy and clear evidentiary history of success that pre-trial services.

Speaker's time is concluded.

Thank you for sharing your comments to the next speaker, please.

My name is Cassie Dibble, and I'm making my comment on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California.

We urge you to deny probation's takeover of pretrial supervision.

We're concerned that this plan coalesced behind closed doors, and that neither the board nor the public has been given sufficient information to justify it.

The vague reasoning provided by the court in recent days seems post-hoc and suggests the possibility of pretext.

Further, we've been given no reason to believe that supervision under probation will provide better or even comparable outcomes.

All signs suggest that probation will have fewer counselors and thus higher caseloads, meaning less assistance for releasees.

Many of us were here two weeks ago and heard the sheriff himself express concern to the budget committee about this transition.

Supervisor Souter inquired how the work would look different under probation and how metrics may change, but not even our sheriff has been provided that information.

Apparently, we are expected to take on blind faith that this allocation of millions of taxpayer dollars is justified.

This is a matter of great public significance that can't be undone and should not be rushed.

The board needs to be diligent and get this right.

Please deny probation's request.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Matthew Sossna, and I'm a law student and a resident of San Francisco's District 8.

I'm here to speak about public safety and what it actually requires.

Public safety is not just policing, it's access to legal representation, mental health care, housing, and stability.

Right now, public defenders are overloaded as misdemeanor and felony cases rise.

That means less time to protect people's constitutional rights.

At the same time, the DA's office still has nearly 40 million dollars more in funding than the public defender.

We are also facing major cuts to community organizations with an estimated thousand layoffs.

These groups provide treatment, housing, re-entry support, and diversion programs that belong in the community, not in systems people already experienced as a punitive and traumatic.

I urge you to increase investment in public defense and protect these services.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Laura Cohen, and I live in the tenderloin.

And uh I'm not gonna say anything different than anybody who's uh come to public comment so far.

But uh I know if I give you statistics or appeal to your logic, it's not nearly as powerful as saying how I feel.

And as someone who lives in the tender line, I don't feel safer knowing there's more police.

I don't feel safer when I hear that my neighbors are not going to actually receive justice when they do get harassed by the police, or knowing that they're getting disappeared into a system that we absolutely have the power to create fairness in, despite the incredible amount of institutionalized racism and injustice that we have in this country.

There are things we can do, and we are a leader in this country, and other states look at what we're doing and look at our programs and see where our successes and our failures come from.

And the least I can tell you is that it feels really shitty right now.

But I know that you can change that.

Thank you for your comments.

So thank you.

Please do not dismantle the next speaker, please.

Give the you know what I'm gonna say.

Shut up.

Hello, my name is Xavier Rosenberg, and I'm with the judicial services team with SF pretrial.

Vice Chair Dorsey, you mentioned that the court's concerns you mentioned something about the court's concerns in the previous meeting, such as the progress report accuracy.

So the very next day I went to the Hall of Justice, chatted with various court staff to hear some of those concerns for firsthand.

I assured the court staff that we're making improvements on the progress report templates and accuracy, and that it would maintain the open dialogue required in order to ensure and maintain the trust that our mutual relationship is based on.

It's just what we do and how we operate.

To refute Brandon Riley's claim about us not being a court, it's simply not true.

You could ask any of the courtroom clerks, judges, and bailiffs about our presence.

And we're constantly moving throughout the courthouse to make sure everyone's needs are addressed.

When your constant present at court ensures that there are accessible pre-trial representatives in the main courtroom hub, room 101, in case we're needed.

We have always been accessible, contrary to what Royally implied previously.

I'm not sure where his info was coming from, but if he has any questions, go to room 101 to find us.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments to the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Bianca Polavina, President IFPCE Local 21 District 1 resident.

I speak today in support of an equitably funded public defender's office.

Local 21 members provide critical legal support services at the public defender.

We work side by side with SCIU 10 to 1 and Teamsters 856 members to ensure a more just San Francisco.

We stand today with our sibling unions in advocating for more resources for the public defender because we see how these high caseloads impact not only the workers in the office, but the clients, their families, and all of San Francisco.

This board now has the power and the responsibility to make the right choice on public safety.

True public safety requires a fully staffed, equitably funded public defender's office.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Daniel Alan Castro Hernandez, and I work with San Francisco Pre-trial as a court liaison.

I've heard the concerns raised about pretrial.

If the court believes there are issues that need to be addressed, the solution should be to resolve them internally.

But to spend millions of dollars creating a new program that largely replicates the services that already exist is preposterous.

At a time when the city is facing difficult budget decisions, I believe the focus should be on improving and strengthening what we already have rather than building a second system from the ground up.

As probation tries to come up with a plan for a transition, pretrial is actively doing the work that they're trying to duplicate.

Before moving forward, I hope the city asks a simple question.

What specific services are missing today that justify the cost of creating an entirely new program?

Thank you.

Thank you for comments.

Next speaker, please.

Thank you, supervisors.

I know it's been a long day.

We're winding down to the end.

Um I just wanted to touch base on one of the comments that was made by probation earlier of just stating that we're hopeful that this program will be efficient.

That is unacceptable in my eyes, being hopeful for something when we're about to change a whole system and impact lives.

Another thing I want to touch on, we've been touching on the community, the clients, and how this is impacting clients.

I want to touch on how this is impacting me and my staff directly.

Um, last few weeks when all this has been occurring, people are still showing up, tired, scared, worried.

Um, the mental health and the stress that is caused on us physically, we're still showing up, we're still in the courtrooms, and we're still answering questions to our clients of what are we gonna do if we go to probation?

What does that mean for us for the clients?

And as staff, we don't have those answers, but we still gonna be here to hold you guys' hands throughout the end, and that's the same thing for our staff.

They're still showing up, we're still gonna hold their hands throughout the end.

Please do not give these funds to probation.

Let's get the next speaker.

Thank you.

My name is Joanna Hernandez.

I'm a native of San Francisco, and as someone who has spent my life working with individuals and families impacted by the system.

As I sit here today, I can't help to feel like we're going backwards.

It's going back to 1990s all over again, overcrowding jails, people double bunked in the gyms.

The problems of incarceration instead of supporting and preventing this from happening.

Generational incarceration is real.

And if I have I have seen children visit their parents in jail, grow up carrying the trauma, and later in life see themselves in that same system.

You guys have the power to stop this.

We're going, this administration goes San Francisco needs to stop.

This didn't happen under the past administrations in the past mayors.

Please take a look at what's happening.

Look at the lives that are being affected by this.

We are part of your community too.

If you were to get in trouble for jaywalking or whatever it is, you're gonna go through metal detectors at the cast center to check in.

That place is just like a jail in itself.

Thank you.

Please support pretrial.

Thank you for comments.

So the next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Camila, and I've worked at SF Pre-trial for four and a half years.

I'm asking the board to retain SF pretrial services for over 50 years.

SF pretrial has built deep experience and strong relationships with the people it serves.

That continuity is the foundation of what makes this program work, and it's not something that could be rebuilt or replicated.

In four and a half years, I've watched this organization build systems and relationships that don't show up in a budget line item, but they're the reason this program works as well as it does.

We have something here that's effective, proven, and worth protecting.

Any transition on any timeline puts that continuity at risk during a period when thousands of people are actively relying on this program.

Retaining SF pretrial means keeping what's already working for the people in this program and for this city.

Please retain SF pretrial services and don't dismantle our services.

Thank you.

Thank you, Camilla.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, and thank you.

My name is Richard Miller.

I am a citizen of San Francisco.

I came today to hear arguments in support of moving pretrial into adult probation.

And two things struck me this morning.

The first was the idea that uh adult probation would hire 35 new people.

Their principal task early on would be to find data to support their own hiring.

That strikes me as quite inappropriate and inefficient.

The second claim is uh that adult probation was tasked with developing a free standing model, not one that compares itself to the current pretrial plan.

When pressed, adult probation pivoted to making comparative claims, speculating that their ROI would be better pretrials now.

Speaker's time has expired.

That's an argument.

But thank you much, Richard Millie, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, members of the board.

Thank you.

Uh happy afternoon.

I just want to reflect on the testimony earlier from the court and probation and what demonstrated a complete lack of understanding about what our pretrial system does.

We weren't able to answer basic questions.

There is misinformation.

It's with these people.

It's been here for 50 years.

You have the right to make the decision.

The mayor's office has told us the decision's in your hands.

I think it's obvious.

I hope it's obvious.

Um you could ask us, we can answer all of your questions.

But just demonstrated by the testimony today, I think you know the right decision.

We're here to work with you.

We're here to work with the courts, the mayor's office probation.

All we want is what's best for San Francisco.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Anya Worley Zigman with the People's Budget Coalition.

And I'm gonna share a little bit more of a personal message today, which is that during this week, as I've been in and out of meetings fighting to save SF pretrial, my family got our sentence for my brother who will now be in prison for the next 10 years.

And afterwards, I got to call him from the Santa Clara jail that he's in at this exact second, and I got to ask him, hey, like this is kind of silly, but when you got arrested, like who did you talk to?

Did you did you interact with SF pretrial?

And he said, Yes, actually I did.

I remember all of those years ago now when he first got arrested.

They were the first people to meet him in what was an incredible moment of shame and embarrassment and the hardest moment of his life, and he never forgot it.

This is why we need these programs.

Hopefully, you will never have to experience this kind of feeling.

Thank you.

And thank you on your worly Siegman.

And Madam Chair, with uh no more speakers online that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public commons, public common is now closed.

Um, thank you.

Uh and with that, Mr.

Clerk.

Sorry, my apologies.

I believe I am continuing this the these three items.

Second, my apologies.

I'm con the motion is to continue item one through three, uh, to our next uh budget and an appropriation committee meeting, and second by Vice Chair Dorsey at a roll call, please.

Actually, to clarify, madam chair.

Uh, the next time we're going to be uh continuing the conversation about the budget is on the Thursday, uh June 18th meeting.

Has uh June 17th we're dealing with trailing legislation.

Yes.

Thank you.

June 17th, they start 10 June 17th.

18th.

Sorry, June 18 Thursday.

Okay.

Thank you.

And uh second.

Well, second by Vice Chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, they're good that we continue all three items to the June 18th meeting of this committee.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I.

Member Sauter, Sauter, I, Member Walton, Walton, I.

Member Chen, Chen, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clark, do we have any other business before us today?

Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

The meetings are journal.