Legislative Analyst Report
 

TO: Budget Committee

FROM: The Office of the Legislative Analyst

DATE: June 27, 2002

RE: Responses to Budget Committee Requests 4/9/02 - 6/26/02

The Office of the Legislative Analyst (OLA) provided the following budget-related responses to members of the Budget Committee and the public over the two-month period from April 9 to June 26. The information provided below was current as of the date it was reported to the Committee (noted in parentheses). Pursuant to Board motion M02-40 passed March 11, this work took precedence over all other requests directed to the OLA during that period.

General Budget Questions

1. Do fees fully recover the costs, where appropriate, and how are costs increasing relative to fees? (presented 4/23/02)

According to the Budget Director for the Controller"s office, Todd Rydstrom, no exhaustive study of the estimated hundreds of fees levied by the city has been done. According to Rydstrom, some fees may fully recover all costs, including departmental overhead, but it is suspected that the majority do not.¹ This may be either because of a conscious policy decision by the Board or Mayor to reduce these costs (ie, Rec and park fees are kept low as a public service) or because the fees have not been adjusted to keep up with inflation and increased costs of service (ie, merchant fees for use of street space have not been increased since 1987). The Revenue Enhancement Working Group (comprised of members from the Controller"s Office, Mayor"s Budget Office, Treasurer, and Sup. Ammiano and Sup. Peskin"s office) evaluated a shortlist of 24 fee groups for potential increases. They presented the results of their findings to the Budget Committee in May.

As a longer-term solution, the OLA recommends that the Board direct the compilation of a master fee schedule, organized by department, of all fees levied by the city (such as is currently the case in the City of Oakland). In future years, the Board could then direct the preparation of an annual fee review to ensure that all City fees are set appropriately.

2. Can automatic cost of living adjustments and automatic sunsets be included in fee legislation? (presented 4/23/02)

Yes. Periodic cost of living adjustments and automatic sunset provisions can be written into fee legislation. According to Tom Owen of the City Attorney"s office, these automatic adjustments would need to include specific formulas that would trigger the fee increase or sunset when specified conditions are satisfied. For example, the Board could amend or introduce fee legislation that would trigger percentage reductions in building permit fees when vacancy rates fall below a certain threshold or increase golf fees commensurately with increases in median income. Implementing such a fee schedule would reduce the need for annual review of these fees - as mentioned previously - so long as the condition that triggers the fee increase or decrease is set appropriately.

The OLA would advise the Board to carefully consider adding sunset provisions to existing fees and whether there exists a compelling reason to do so. Economic theory supports the finding that resources are most equitably and efficiently distributed when users pay the costs, or at least a portion of the costs, of providing the service.

3. Update on Town Hall Meetings (updated 5/7/02 and presented 5/21/02)

The twelve town hall budget meetings held April 18 to June 62 were well attended, with attendance ranging from approximately 40 to nearly 200 participants per meeting. The OLA attended all twelve meetings and prepared notes of the issues raised during each. These notes have been distributed to the sponsoring Supervisor and have been posted on the Board of Supervisor"s Web site at http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.asp. The OLA summarized comments made at each of the Town Hall Meetings and reported back to the Budget Committee on Tuesday, May 21.

The issues raised during the meetings reflected the diversity of the eleven districts and addressed issues ranging from public works and protection to mental and public health. This overview summarizes those issues that were either common to more than one district meeting or elicited near consensus responses from participants during one individual town hall meeting. Therefore, while not every individual issue is represented here, those identifiable issues either commonly supported or proposed for cuts by town hall meeting participants appear below.

If there was one theme common to the majority of the town hall meetings it was a request not to cut programs that serve the most vulnerable populations - children, the elderly, the uninsured, the poor, the homeless, and the sick. Participants therefore focused much of their attention on items proposed for reductions in the Departments of Public Health and Human Services.

Commonly Supported Programs

The following programs were scheduled for budget reductions for fiscal year 02/03 and were repeatedly defended by town hall meeting participants. At the Budget Committee"s request, the OLA developed eleven one-page fact sheets on these programs that include the nature of the proposed budget cut, the anticipated impacts on service delivery and, to the extent possible, the alternatives that exist to the program should its resources be reduced. These fact sheets can be found online at http://www.sfgov.org/site/bdsupvrs_index.aspid=7278.

Department of Human Services

Department of Public Health

Department of Children, Youth and Families

Department of Public Works

MUNI

Public"s Proposed Cuts

Town Hall participants had several suggestions for ways that the city could meet its projected budget shortfall. While the way in which the town hall meetings were conducted make it impossible to say which suggestions are more widely supported than others, a few suggestions were common to more than one of the meetings. These include:

· Increasing financial accountability of wasteful spending at the Airport and directing the Budget Analyst"s office to conduct an audit of the Airport,

· Reducing Police Department overtime,

· Eliminating "non-safety" positions at the Fire and Police Departments and, more generally, holding the Police and Fire Departments responsible for the same 10% cuts required of other departments,

· Civilianizing deputized officials working in administrative capacities,

· Increasing revenues by raising appropriate fees,

· Realizing savings from employee attrition,

· Utilizing reserve funds, and

· Implementing the recommendations of the Civil Grand Jury regarding seismic retrofitting at San Francisco General Hospital, billboard permitting, and professional services contracting

Additional suggestions for closing the budget gap included:

· Restricting the use of City vehicles,

· Increasing Parks and Recreation pool fees for adults,

· Increasing residential parking fees,

· Selling surplus property,

· Renegotiating the City"s cable franchise agreement,

· Cutting cash assistance programs for the homeless,

· Reducing city support for the Lucas Film campus in the Presidio,

· Exploring ways to increase revenue from cruise ships docking at the piers,

· Increasing developer exaction fees,

· Increasing sewage fee rates, especially for Northern San Mateo County which sends a portion of their waste to the Bayview/Hunter"s Point facility,

· Merging the Police and Sheriff"s Departments,

· Cutting the number of Special Assistants in the Mayor"s Office,

· Reducing the size of the City Attorney"s Office, and

· Imposing a "commuter tax" on those earning > $60,000/yr and commuting to work by car

Many participants thanked the Supervisors for opening up the budget process and allowing their voices to be heard as the Board considered the City"s budget.

4. Describe the City"s various hotline services and make a recommendation on potential cost savings from merging similar services. (presented 6/17/02)

In addition to those 24-hour hotlines required of every county by state law (such as the suicide prevention and child abuse reporting hotlines), the City supports four hotlines through three departments. These are:

 

Department	Hotline	Average Calls	Average GF Support3	FY01/02 GF Budget	Proposed GF Change for FY02/03
1. Human Services (DHS)	Parental Stress TALK Line	38 calls/day (~14,000 duplicated, ~2,100 unduplicated clients/year)	$15.25/call	$213,528	Baseline reduction of $17,692.
2. Human Services (DHS)	Asian Pacific Islander Family Hotline	5 calls/day (~1,200 duplicated, 748 unduplicated clients/year)	$65.86/call	$79,034	No change.
3. Public Health (DPH)	California HIV/AIDS Information and Referral Hotline	66 calls/day in SF, 230 calls/day statewide	$5.76/ SF call, $1.64/ statewide call	$138,172	No change.
4. Children, Youth & Families (DCYF)	CHALK Youthline	29 calls/day (10,647 unduplicated clients/year)	$9.39/call	$100,000	Reduce GF by $100,000 and offset with $91,880 from the Children"s Fund for a net budget reduction of $8,120.

Only two of the four hotlines supported by the City qualify as providing similar services: the Parental Stress TALK Line and the Asian Pacific Islander Family Hotline (APIFH). Both of these hotlines provide counseling, crisis intervention, and referral services to San Francisco families. However, they specifically target different cultural and ethnic populations. TALK Line serves the English and Spanish speaking communities while APIFH serves those communities speaking one of seven Asian and Pacific Islander languages: Cantonese, Mandarin, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Laotian, Tagolog, and Samoan.

Consolidating these programs without reducing services, therefore, would require the maintenance of staff fluent in these nine languages. As the majority of the program"s budget is tied to personnel (78-80%), which would not likely be greatly reduced due to consolidation, such a merger would likely reduce the quality of both services for a very small General Fund savings.

The Department of Human Services (DHS) originally proposed, as part of their 10% budget cuts, to merge these two programs for a potential General Fund saving of up to $150,000. However, Phil Arnold, Director of Planning and Budget for DHS, stated that the Department is no longer actively considering this proposal and no actual design was ever developed to reach that $150,000 cost savings. According to Asian Perinatal Advocates, cutting over half of the combined budgets for these two programs would lead to the elimination of both hotlines and consolidating their services would compromise the cultural competency requirement of serving these different ethnic groups.

The OLA therefore does not feel that consolidating these hotlines would result in significant general fund savings. The determination of whether or not to continue funding for these four hotlines is a budget prioritization issue for the Board.

Administrative Services

1a. General inquiry about whether the City could make the vehicle fleet more efficient. (presented 4/16/02)

See 1b below.

1b. Make specific recommendations for cost savings regarding Citywide fleet management for FY 2002-03. (presented 5/25/02 and 5/27/02)

The OLA evaluated the viability of several proposals that seek to centralize and make our fleets more efficient for direct cost savings in FY 2002-03.

Executive Summary

An analysis of the current fleet management system in the City and County of San Francisco demonstrates that the City should find ways to manage its fleets more effectively, both to reduce costs and to support efforts to improve air quality.⁴ Unfortunately, insufficient data and information makes quantifying the potential savings impossible at this time.

Since 1999, the City Administrative Code has placed many of the responsibilities of managing the City"s fleet with the Director of Administrative Service. However, due to a decentralized fleet management staff, insufficient data and information, replacement cost barriers, and lack of incentives for departments to implement effective fleet management practices, the City"s fleets remain decentralized and under utilized.

We recommend that in FY 2002-03 the Board of Supervisors enable the application of existing codes by holding in reserve 40% of the maintenance and repair requests of General Fund departments for 6 months while Administrative Services works with departments to develop fleet management and vehicle retirement plans. This reserve will total approximately $5.4 million dollars. The Board of Supervisors may wish to hear a report back from Administrative Services to consider whether departments have demonstrated progress in implementing Chapter 85.7(1) - develop a plan to phase out highly polluting motor vehicles and motorized equipment over 12 years old, Administrative Code 4.10 - inspect vehicles over 60,000 miles and make recommendations for retention, transfer or replacement, and have begun to implement fleet management practices more generally before releasing the reserved funds. The Board of Supervisors may wish to begin this evaluation in January 2003.

We also recommend that the Board transfer a total of approximately $628,330 from departments requesting new passenger vehicles to a centralized fund from which all new vehicles are purchased.⁵ The administrator of this fund, likely Central Shops following the recommendation of the Director of Administrative Services, will develop and apply criteria Citywide before purchasing any new passenger vehicles. Whether to implement these recommendations is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.

Current Law and Practice

Since 1999, the San Francisco Administrative Code Chapter 85 directs the Director of Administrative Services to procure new alternative fuel and other low emission vehicles for the City"s fleet, to develop a plan to replace vehicles that have been in service for 12 years or more, and to investigate vehicle pools and car-sharing concepts as a means to reduce the size of the City"s fleet. Additionally, Administrative Code 4.10 and 4.11 centralize the approval of assigning vehicles to individuals and taking vehicles home, and direct Administrative Services to make recommendations as to retention, transfer and/or replacement of vehicles over 6 years old.

The City currently has 2,079 cars/sport utility vehicles, 1,450 pick up trucks, and 700 vans. According to the Mayor"s Budget Office, in FY 2002-03, the purchase of 26 passenger cars at a cost of approximately $628,330 is within the Mayor"s Budget. In FY 2002-03, General Fund departments have work-ordered $13.45 million to Central Shops for maintenance and repair, and $3.6 million for fuel, according to Mr. Brooks. Despite Administrative Code 85.7(I), 4.10, and 4.11 (a), departments control their fleets in terms of purchasing, utilization and maintenance. While the City has made some progress implementing Chapter 85 (Administrative Code 85.7)⁶, particularly in expanding the City"s use of alternative fuel vehicles, the fleets can still be characterized as highly decentralized and underutilized.

According to the Director of Administrative Services, Ryan Brooks, departments do not have incentives to turn over older vehicles for which they have marginal need. Consequently, the fleets are comprised of older vehicles (among cars, 13% are over 12 years old), which are expensive to repair. These vehicles require more frequent and expensive repairs which lead to excess downtimes that encourages departments to retain more vehicles than are needed, according to Mr. Brooks. Central Shops calculated the maintenance cost of vehicles in the City"s fleets as they age. The results were quite staggering. For the 10-year-old vehicles, the total average ten year life cost came to $11,024, whereas the average life cost of the six year-old vehicles was $4,317.⁷

The decision to make new vehicle purchases is primarily left to individual departments. The Department of Environment reviews and Administrative Services approves requests for vehicles and equipment which are not low emissions and/or alternative fuel, according to Rick Ruvolo of the Department of the Environment. However, the City does not have a citywide set of criteria to determine whether the new vehicle is necessary considering our existing fleet resources, including vehicle pools. As noted above, the Administrative Codes that seek to centralize fleet management are not fully implemented.

Challenges⁸

1. Lack of Central Authority. Although the Administrative Code places many of the responsibilities of managing the City"s fleet with the Director of Administrative Service, staffing for fleet management is decentralized. Currently, four departments are involved in implementing Chapter 85:

2. Insufficient Data and Information. According to the Controller"s Office (memo dated 3/14/02), decentralized fleet management has led to inadequate data gathering about vehicle utilization, inefficient planning of vehicle maintenance and replacement, and duplicative capital improvements for maintenance facilities to just name a few. According to Mr. Brooks, there has not been any systematic review of vehicle usage citywide. Also, while the Mayor"s Budget staff and the Budget Analyst have required departments to submit information to support retention of their vehicles, the information has not been regularly provided and few vehicles have been removed from departments. As a result, estimating the amount of saving that could be achieved by department is impossible at this time.

3. Replacement cost barrier. According to the Controller"s Office (memo dated 3/14/02), replacing our vehicles that have been in service for twelve years or more (per Administrative Code 85.7) would create difficult budgetary situations. According to Central Shops, replacing the 263 cars in our fleet that are over twelve years old, would cost approximately $5.2 million. However, the City could review this inventory of cars and develop a long-term strategic plan to ensure such vehicles are removed in a systematic manner.

4. Lack of incentives for good behavior. For many years the City has provided director, deputy directors and managers with City cars. This has created an expectation on the part of these individuals that they ought to have access to a vehicle. Also, as noted above, departments do not have sufficient incentives to turn over older vehicles and implement car sharing strategies.

Recommendations

Potential Solutions. Several recommendations have emerged that seek to make our fleets more efficient. The Mayor"s Office with the help of the Controller"s Office and Administrative Services is (1) implementing a second vehicle pool (similar to the existing one at City Hall) in the Otis/Mission area, and (2) encouraging departments to follow the lead of the Department of Recreation and Parks to use non-profit car share programs to augment their fleet after consultation with the City"s fleet management programs. The Director of Administrative Services is also requesting funds to hire a consultant to study further centralization issues. Additionally, in response to the decentralized system, staff from the Department of Environment, Clean Air Program, Purchasing and Central Shops, in partnership with the Department of Administrative Services, initiated the "Green Fleets Team." This group has programs under way that could be expanded and has identified potential models that the City could implement to reduce the size and costs of the City"s fleets.

Short-term recommendations. The costs of the City fleets could be reduced if fleet management practices were improved. However, the City has inadequate data about vehicle utilization, maintenance and replacement, capital improvements for maintenance facilities, and the capacity of our vehicle pools. As a result, estimating the amount of savings that could be achieved for FY 2002-03 with certainty is impossible at this time.⁹ In the short term, we recommend the following:

1. The Board of Supervisors may consider enabling the application of existing codes by holding in reserve 40% of the maintenance and repair requests for 6 months while Administrative Services works with departments to develop fleet management and vehicle retirement plans. The fund will total approximately $5.4 million, according to Mr. Brooks. The Board of Supervisors may wish to hear a report back from Administrative Services and related departments at the committee level after six months and may wish to begin this evaluation in January 2003. We would recommend that the Committee consider whether departments have demonstrated progress in implementing Chapter 85.7(1) - develop a plan to phase out highly polluting motor vehicles and motorized equipment over 12 years old, Administrative Code 4.10 - inspect vehicles over 60,000 miles with recommendations for retention, transfer or replacement, and have begun to implement fleet management practices more generally before forwarding a recommendation to the full Board of Supervisors to release the aforementioned funds.

2. The Board of Supervisors may wish to transfer a total of approximately $628,330 thousand from departments requesting new passenger vehicles to a centralized fund from which all new vehicles are purchased. The administrator of this fund, likely Central Shops following the recommendation of the Director of Administrative Services, will develop and apply criteria Citywide before purchasing any new passenger vehicles.

Whether to implement the recommendations above is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.

Long-term recommendations. Costs could be reduced more significantly if central administration and/or coordination of fleets and fleet maintenance were achieved. In concurrence with Mr. Brooks, we would recommend that the City contract with a fleet management specialist firm to conduct a feasibility study of centralizing fleet management functions. Grant funding for such a study may be available, according to Rick Ruvolo of the Clean Air Program. This study should help the City avoid maintenance duplication, streamline processes, and meet the goals of reducing its fleet. The cost will range from $50,000 to $75,000, according to Mr. Brooks. Within its scope, we would recommend that the study consider the following:

Vehicles Assigned to Individuals

 

Department				Title		Reason
5. Port				Executive Director		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
6. Port				Assistant Deputy Director, Maintenance		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
7. Port				Assistant Deputy Director, Maintenance		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
8. Port				Maintenance Supt		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
9. Port				Maintenance Supt		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
10. Port				Construction & Maintenance Supervisor		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
11. Port				Supervisor Plumbers		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
12. Port				Supervisor, Carpenters		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
13. Port				Supervisor, Roofers		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
14. Port				Supervisors, Cranes		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
15. Port				Supervisor, Electricians		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
16. Port				Chief Building Inspector		Timely response for emergencies after normal work hours as needed
17. Airport				Airport Director		On-call emergency response
18. Airport				Chief of Staff		On-call emergency response (second in command to Airport Director
19. Airport				Chief Operating Officer		On-call emergency response (security, operations)
20. Airport				Deputy Airport Director, Operations		On-call emergency response (runway activities, landside)
21. Airport				Deputy Airport Director, FOM		On-call emergency response (Facilities - Infrastructure)
22. Airport				Deputy Airport Director, Business & Finance		On-call emergency response personnel
23. Airport				Manager, Bureau of Design and Construction		On-call emergency response (construction)
24. Airport				Deputy Airport Director, Administration		On-call emergency response (Health and Safety and Data/Telecommunications)
Department				Title		Reason
25. Airport				Deputy Airport Director, ADB		On-call emergency response (backup to construction impacts)
26. Airport				Director, Community Affairs		24-hour availability to media on emergency issues
27. Airport				Director, ADB		On-call meetings outside of normal workday
28. Airport				Associate Deputy Airport Director, Operations		On-call emergency response (Aviation Security)
29. Airport				Commander, SFPD, Airport Bureau		On-call emergency response personnel
30. Airport				Deputy Chief of Police, Airport Bureau		On-call emergency response personnel
31. 32. 33. Airport				Captains, Police Department, Airport Bureau (4)		On-call emergency response personnel
34. & 41. Airport				K-9 Police Units (5)		On-call emergency response personnel
42.Airport				On-Call Officer (during on-call week)		On-call emergency response personnel
43.Airport				Chief, Airport Fire Department		On-call emergency response personnel
44.Airport				Fire Marshall		On-call emergency response personnel
45.Airport				Airport Operations Captain, Fire Department		On-call emergency response personnel
46.Airport				Hazardous Materials Specialist, Fire Department		On-call emergency response personnel
47.Airport				Assistant Deputy Director, Maintenance		On-call emergency response (oversee all Maintenance and custodial issues)
48.Airport				Maintenance Superintendent		On-call emergency response for maintenance
49.Airport				Plumbing Supervisor		On-call emergency response for any plumbing issues
50.Airport				Steamfitting Supervisor		On-call emergency response
51.Airport				Carpenter Supervisor		On-call emergency response
52.Airport				Automotive Supervisor		On-call emergency response
53.Airport				Head Airport Electrician		On-call emergency response
54. Airport				Airport Electrician Supervisor		On-call emergency response
55. Airport				Mechanical Supervisor		On-call emergency response
Department				Title		Reason
56. Airport				Pavement and Grounds Supervisor		On-call emergency response
57. Airport				Sheetmetal Supervisor		On-call emergency response
58. Airport				Landscaping Supervisor		On-call emergency response
59. Airport				Custodial Supervisor		On-call emergency response
60. Airport				Principal Architect		On-call emergency response
61. Medical Examiner				Chief Medical Examiner		On-call emergency response
62. Medical Examiner				Assistant Medical Examiner		On-call emergency responses
63. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
64. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
65. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
66. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
67. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
68. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
69. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
70. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
71. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
72. City Attorney"s Office				Claim Investigator		Respond to emergencies and investigate accidents on a 24 hour basis
		Passenger Vehicle Purchases, 2002-2003
		Dept	Index		EquipTitle		Count	Amount
		DPW	DPW771055		SEDAN, COMPACT, LEV (EG HONDA CIVIC CNG)		1	$ 23,000
		DPW	DPW778100		SEDAN, COMPACT, LEV (EG HONDA CIVIC CNG)		1	$ 23,000
		DPW	DPW771055		SEDAN, FULLSIZE, LEV(EG FORD CROWN CNG)		2	$ 52,000
		DPW	DPW772012		SEDAN, MIDSIZE, LEV(EG TOYOTA CAMRY CNG)		1	$ 26,000
	DPW Total						5	$ 124,000
		PTC	PTC042SGTF03		SEDAN, COMPACT, LEV (EG HONDA CIVIC CNG)		1	$ 22,224
	PTC Total						1	$ 22,224
		REC	REC3COM		Compact Sedan		1	$ 25,200
	REC Total						1	$ 25,200
	Vehicles Lease Financed through GEN:
		AGE	260000		COMPACT SEDAN LEV		3	$ 61,998
		AGE	260000		COMPACT SEDAN LEV		2	$ 41,332
		DAT	45007		SEDAN, MIDSIZE GASOLINE		1	$ 26,000
		DSS	45ADSS		MID-SIZE SEDAN LEV		7	$ 182,000
		DSS	45ADSS		MID-SIZE SEDAN LEV		2	$ 52,000
		DSS	45ADSS		MID-SIZE SEDAN LEV		2	$ 52,000
		JUV	125009		2002 HONDA CIVIC CNG-REPLACE		2	$ 41,576
							19	$ 456,906
	Grand Total						26	$ 628,330

2. What is the city"s policy for determining whether to lease vs. purchase office space? (presented 4/23/02)

The city does not currently have an explicit policy regarding when to lease and when to purchase office space. In recent years, office space acquisitions made by the Real Estate Division of the Department of Administrative Services have been opportunistic rather than driven by an explicit policy.

According to Marc McDonald, Director of the Real Estate Division, whether to lease or buy property for city office space should be based on whether the user-owner plans to occupy the space on a long-term basis or a temporary basis. In the real estate arena, a long period of time generally is a period in excess of 10 years. In the case of municipal acquisitions, a long period of time for holding real estate could be viewed as a period that exceeds the term of the debt service or an average of about 20-25 years.

According to information provided by the Real Estate Division, the City and County of San Francisco currently leases almost one million square feet of office space in 52 locations, primarily in the Civic Center. The City spends approximately $1.8 million per month in rent, or an average rental rate of $1.87 per square foot. This is slightly below market rate for the area¹⁰. According to recent surveys by the Real Estate Division, the cost to build new office space would be between $350 and $450 per rentable square foot. Similarly, the cost of purchasing existing office space can be estimated using eight sales of existing buildings in San Francisco in 2001, which ranged from $181 to $401 per rentable square foot.

3. Why is the Data Center lease so expensive at One Market Plaza? (presented 4/23/02)

The Data Center Lease at One Market Plaza was the subject of some discussion at the Budget Committee Meeting in April. In this case the monthly rental rate for 19,051 square feet of space is $6.67 per square foot or $127,006 per month. As this equals over 3.5 times the average city lease cost mentioned above, some brief history is appropriate. The One Market Plaza lease was originally negotiated in 1993 when the real estate market was in a slump and computer data centers were leaving the city for less expensive space in the suburbs. The space was of average size and unsuitable for office use because the Embarcadero Freeway obstructed the views. The city therefore invested in this special purpose space to include a specialized fire suppression system, a high security system, specialized climate controls, above standard power, high data transmission capabilities, above standard weight bearing floors, elevated floors and an underground fuel storage tank to supply a dedicated back-up power generator. When the Embarcadero Freeway was removed and the mid-Embarcadero Plaza was completed, the views improved and the space became coveted office space. The lease expired in 2000 and the rent had to be renegotiated at the height of the "dot-com" frenzy for space in San Francisco. In recognition of the fact that the cost to relocate the facility would cost millions of dollars and with full knowledge that suitable alternate space was unavailable at that time, the decision was made to renew the lease in 2000. Since that time the San Francisco rental market has collapsed. As a result, what was then a good deal now appears to be an expensive deal.

In this instance, an appropriate approach to policy might weigh the following factors: the permanent and specialized nature of a data center combined with the high cost associated with acquisition and relocation of delicate equipment against the risk of fluctuating rental rates versus the cost to buy or build. The balance of these factors could help determine whether it makes sense to buy or lease facilities for the data enterprise for the City of San Francisco.

Board of Appeals

1. Why didn"t the Board of Appeals have a 5% COLA absorption in the budget? (presented 5/21/02)

According to the Mayor"s Budget Office, to include a 5% COLA in the proposed budget would have negatively impacted the Department, which has a relatively small budget of $422,000. Indeed, the inclusion of this item would have amounted to approximately $20,000 or approximately 4.5% of the Department"s total budget. To put this in perspective, salaries account for 94% of the Board of Appeals" budget. To absorb their COLA, the Department would have to cut their non-salaries budget ($24,000), eliminate the overtime that is a result of Board meetings ($6,000), or lay employees off. None of these seemed like viable options, according to the Mayor"s Budget Office.

Department of Human Services

1a. Review whether DHS will reduce funding to three service providers: (1) Supportive Housing Collaborative (SHEC), (2) Family Eviction Prevention Consortium and (3) Child Abuse Prevention Talkline. (presented 4/16/02)

Supportive Housing Collaborative. DHS proposes to reduce funding to the SHEC system (see 1b. below) by $266,205 from $1,221,635 in FY 01-02 to $955,430 in FY 02-03. DHS advises that this reduction reflects the Department"s commitment to prioritize funding for shelter and food programs. Also, DHS intends to continue funding other similar employment service programs.

Family Eviction Prevention Consortium. DHS will continue to fund the Family Eviction Prevention Collaborative (FEPCO) at last year"s level, which amounts to $839,226 in FY 02-03.

Child Abuse Prevention TALKline. Talkline received $200,000 from DHS through the Board"s "add-back" process in FY 01-02. As of June 24, the Mayor"s proposed balanced budget for 2002-2003 restored funding for this add-back. See General Budget Questions #4 above more information.

1b. How are SHEC services different from other services? (presented 4/23/02)

The SHEC is a partnership of 5 agencies, which provide vocational, employment, educational, and training services in 10 supportive housing sites in the Tenderloin and South of Market neighborhoods. The SHEC and its partner agencies provide a total of 735 units of supportive housing to low-income and formerly homeless individuals and families in San Francisco.

The OLA researched whether other organizations, either City-funded or non-City-funded, provide services in San Francisco like those offered by the SHEC system. DHS staff advised our office to analyze 4 programs: the Homeless Employment Collaborative (HEC), Toolworks, CalWORKs and PAES (Personal Assisted Employment Services). Although we discovered some similarities, we cannot conclude that SHEC"s constituencies are the same constituencies served by these other programs. First, CalWORKS, otherwise known as welfare to work, serves adults with dependent children. SHEC participants may or may not have dependent children. Secondly, among other services, PAES provides temporary cash assistance to "employable" adults who are on their way to work and self-sufficiency. According to SHEC, many of its participants have not been employed for years and some do not even know what their employment skills are. Thirdly, Toolworks (a City-funded non-profit organization) mainly provides educational, vocational and support services to adults with disabilities. Although many SHEC participants have disabilities, some of them do not, according to SHEC staff. Finally, the Private Industry Council"s HEC program appears to be the most similar to the SHEC system in terms of services provided. In fact, two of SHEC"s partner agencies perform services under contract for the HEC program. However, while the SHEC system focuses on low income, formerly homeless individuals in supportive housing, the HEC program serves a wider range of individuals, including currently homeless individuals living on the streets and those in shelters and transitional housing. Thus, our office cannot conclude that SHEC"s constituencies are the same constituencies served by those in other programs.

Mayor"s Office of Economic Development

1. Why are there no performance measures for the Office of Small Business Affairs, Public Finance and Seismic Safety Loan Program? (presented 4/30/02)

According to the Department, although they were not included in the Mayor"s Preliminary Budget, there are performance measures for each of these programs. For instance, Mayor"s Office of Economic Development"s Small Business Affairs Department measures the number of businesses it assists annually. This fiscal year, the Office expects to assist 675 businesses and projects to assist the same number in FY 2002-2003. Moreover, Public Finance simply finances projects, which are managed by departments that develop their own performance measures. Nevertheless, Public Finance measures its efforts to improve and maintain the City"s bond rating by using three different rating services: Standard and Poor"s, Moody"s, and Fitch.

Finally, according to the Department, the Seismic Safety Loan Program recently instituted its own performance measures, including the number of loan applicants assisted each year, with a separate category for those who wish to improve un-reinforced masonry buildings. The Department advised our office that it is open to suggestions from the Budget Committee regarding new performance measures. In addition, it intends to include its existing performance measures in the Mayor"s Final Budget.

2. What is the value of the First Source Hiring Program (only 200-250 placements shown in performance measures)? What are the costs of implementing this program? What is the cost per placement? (presented 4/30/02)

The First Source Hiring Program was created in August 1988. First Source is a cooperative effort between business, the job training community and the City to ensure that economically disadvantaged individuals have an opportunity to apply and be considered for entry-level jobs. These jobs will be available as a result of certain contracts, leases, and building permits signed or issued by the City.

The value of First Source lies in its attempt to link economically disadvantaged individuals to entry level jobs (created by both private and public investment) while at the same time providing business with access to a pool of qualified applicants. First Source provides a structure to link under-served communities with job opportunities by using the City"s existing workforce development system.

The on-going annual costs of the program total $110,000, including $85,000 for 1 FTE and 25,000 for a 0.5 FTE (both of which are located in the DHS budget). This translates to a cost of between $440 and $550 per placement, which is a favorable cost/efficiency ratio compared to similar programs averaging $1,450 per placement (This figure is derived from the Private Industry Council, which monitors some employment development contracts for the City).

Planning Department

1. Provide a list and description of Planning Department fees. (presented 5/21/02)

The OLA provided a hardcopy from the Planning Department that describes Planning Department fees and supplies dollars collected in FY 2001-02.

2. Is the valuation fee reflected in the Planning Fee list that the OLA submitted on May 21 a transfer from DBI? (presented 6/17/02)

According to the Planning Department, the $2,672,837 of valuation fees collected at the close of March 2002 for building permit review does not represent transfers from DBI. Rather, the Planning Department collects a separate fee based on construction valuation when it must review potential building proposals to ensure that a proposed construction is in conformance with the Planning Code.

Police Department

1. How can the Police Department address recidivism and can the Department take advantage of lessons learned by the Sheriff"s Department? (presented 5/14/02)

Last week Sheriff Hennessey provided the OLA with program information and statistics on all Sheriff"s Department programs aimed at addressing the problem of recidivism. The OLA provided this information to Captain Goldberg of the Police Department May 9 to share with the appropriate staff for their review.

2. How is the Department doing on the recovery of "special event" costs? (presented 5/21/02)

A. Street Fairs

In San Francisco, the Interdepartmental Staff Committee on Traffic and Transportation (ISCOTT) reviews all requests for temporary street closures (eg, street fairs including, for example, the Folsom Street Fair), and forwards a recommendation to the head of the Department of Parking and Traffic. ISCOTT also coordinates the various fees charged for temporarily closing the street (based on actual costs to the City and in accordance with a fee schedule in the San Francisco Traffic Code). With respect to police services, Section 806 of the City"s Traffic Code stipulates that the City may collect only "40 percent of the projected Police Department costs incurred by reason of the street fair; provided, that this fee shall not exceed $2,500." ISCOTT may waive all or part of this fee if sponsors show that they are unable to pay the full fee. However, according to ISCOTT staff, it has never invoked this authority, instead it directs waiver requests to the Board of Supervisors.

The City"s Revenue Enhancement Working Group, which evaluated a list of potential fee increases, concluded that the City should charge the full costs of police services to street fairs serving alcohol. According to the Working Group, there are on average 27 annual street fairs, of which 12 serve alcohol. As a result of the Working Group"s conclusion, the Mayor drafted an ordinance amending the City"s Traffic Code to charge the full costs of police services to street fairs serving alcohol, rather than the 40 percent of the costs incurred. Among other provisions, the ordinance would also eliminate the $2,500 cap on charges for police services for street fairs serving alcohol. This ordinance, along with several other pieces of legislation regarding City fees, was included in the Mayor"s June 3 balanced budget proposal.

Although street fair sponsors must pay the street fair permit no later than 10 days before the date of the event, ISCOTT generally bills sponsors after, rather than before, scheduled events, because, according to ISCOTT, many sponsors receive support from their funding sources only after receiving ISCOTT invoices. ISCOTT advised our office that none of its accounts are delinquent at this time. If an account is delinquent, ISCOTT will not issue a street fair permit to the street fair sponsor. According to ISCOTT, this is informal practice rather than codified policy. Moreover, ISCOTT advised our office that it will investigate whether it will forward them to the City"s Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector. Our office recommends that the Board of Supervisors require ISCOTT to codify (1) a policy to deny street fair permits to sponsors with delinquent accounts, and (2) a policy for forwarding delinquent accounts to the City"s Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector.

Notably, we discovered that ISCOTT does not currently charge for its enforcement services (ie, traffic control) to street fairs. According to ISCOTT staff, several years ago, the Department of Parking Traffic (DPT) absorbed enforcement services, which were formerly provided by the Police Department. However, Article 21 of the City"s Traffic Code has not been changed to allow DPT to charge for its enforcement services to street fairs. Therefore, although this issue is beyond the scope of this analysis, the Board of Supervisors may wish to consider amending Article 21 of the City"s Traffic Code to allow DPT to charge for its enforcement services to street fairs.

B1. 10B Police Officers

Section 10B.2 of the City"s Administrative Code requires the Police Department to charge any person, corporation, or organization requesting special security services a base rate (which is the overtime pay rate of the uniformed police officers providing those services), as well as the cost of additional equipment and materials needed to provide the services. In November of 1999, the Controller"s Office issued a report on whether the Police Department complied with Section 10B.2 of the Administrative Code. Among other findings, the report indicates that the Police Department generally charged for its services correctly, but did not charge all organizations the 22.5% administrative overhead fee required at the time by the City"s Administrative Code. The Police Department responded to the Controller"s findings in a memorandum dated October 29, 1999, advising the Controller"s Office that previous City administrations directed the Police Department not to charge the 22.5% administrative overhead fee to some organizations. In response to this inconsistent practice of levying and waiving fees, the Board of Supervisors ultimately approved an ordinance amending the City"s Administrative Code to eliminate the 22.5% administrative overhead fee in February of 2000.

Notably, the City"s Revenue Enhancement Working Group recently recommended that the City re-institute the administrative overhead fee with the provision that only the Board of Supervisors can waive the fee. The Mayor subsequently drafted an ordinance amending Section 10B.2 of the Administrative Code to require the City to (1) charge a 15% administrative overhead fee to individuals/organizations requesting special security services and (2) prohibit the waiver of fees for such services except by ordinance of the Board of Supervisors. The proposed fee is less than previous 22.5% fee because, according to the Police Department, the 15% fee would be sufficient to pay for its administrative overhead costs. This ordinance was also included in the Mayor"s June 3 balanced budget proposal.

 

By way of background, the Police Department created the Police Law Enforcement Services (PLES) Unit to administer and provide the additional security services. Although the Police Department requires sponsors to deposit the amount of projected police costs prior to the date of the event, actual costs will sometimes exceed projected costs; in which case, the Department seeks recovery of its costs for services rendered after the date of the event. According to the City"s Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector, currently it does not have a policy to charge sponsors interest on delinquent accounts. However, Section 3287 of the State Civil Code allows creditors, including municipal governments, to recover interest from debtors.

B2. Prepare a list of outstanding invoices for expenses incurred under Section 10B.2 of the City"s Administrative Code. (presented 6/17/02)

The Police Department advised the Legislative Analyst that they converted from a manual to an automated tracking system after recently discovering it had weak internal controls for tracking delinquent revenues.

Currently, neither the Police Department nor the Office of the Treasurer & Tax Collector have a policy to charge interest on delinquent accounts. According to the City Attorney"s Office, the City would have to pass an ordinance to allow these departments to charge interest on delinquent Police Law Enforcement Services (PLES) accounts. Of course, this is a policy matter for the Board of Supervisors.

3. Please provide statistics regarding number of homicides, apprehensions overtime, number of homicides closed for other reasons, and a listing of those reasons. The costs associated with a homicide investigation, including a listing of the staff persons involved. (presented 5/21/02)

The Police Department submitted a memo to the Budget Committee on May 15^th that includes the number of homicides, staffing level of the Homicide Detail and case closure statistics. If the Board requires more detailed information, the OLA will work with the Crime Investigation Unit to provide more detailed analysis for the Budget Committee. However, due to a large volume of information requests to the Crime Unit, the data on clearance rates and costs for homicides was not available prior to the end of June 2002.

4. Review of Budget Analyst Audit

The OLA was directed to review the status of cost saving recommendations found in the1996 and 1998 Budget Analyst Police Department Management Audit Reports (Volume 1 and Volume 2). Attached, please find a response from the Police Department"s Fiscal Division regarding the implementation status of the 13¹¹ recommendations with direct budgetary savings or benefits (Attachment I). According to Captain Goldberg, the Police Department has fully implemented two, substantially or partially implemented four, and not implemented seven of the recommendations. In order for the Police Department to fully implement the recommendation of recovering the full cost of providing police coverage at special events, the Board of Supervisors should consider, as a policy matter, amending legislation that allows for special event cost recovery associated with Special Law Enforcement Services. Additionally, the Board may wish to consider, as a policy matter, amending the Charter, Section 4.127, to facilitate the civilianization of non-police functions (please see #5 below).

At the time of the writing of this report, the Police Department had not estimated the savings that have resulted from implementing the 1996/1998 audit recommendations. The Budget Analyst is also unable to estimate savings having not conducted a follow-up audit. Additionally, the recommendation regarding paying court standby pay at the straight time rate and implementing the provisions of Proposition 115, which Captain Goldberg indicated was implemented, is only partially implemented because the Department continues to pay premium rates for court standby time. This level of pay is a benefit included in the MOU adopted on July 16, 2001.

The vast majority of the seven recommendations that have not been implemented are because implementation of these recommendations would require amendments to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City of the Police Officers Association, according to Captain Goldberg. The Budget Analyst is conferring with the City Attorney to verify this claim. Our office will continue to work with the Police Department and the Budget Analyst"s Office to resolve why the majority of recommendations within the 1996 and 1998 Budget Analyst Management Audit Reports have not been implemented.

5. Compare San Francisco Police Department"s civilianization levels to other police departments statewide. (presented 5/14/02)

The OLA was directed to research the civilianization issue in the San Francisco Police Department (SFPD). For the purpose of this report, civilianization means the conversion of sworn positions that perform duties that do not require peace officer status, to non-sworn positions.

1996 & 1998 Audit Civilianization Findings. The 1996 and 1998 Budget Analyst Management Audit Reports identified civilianization as a major area of potential cost savings for the SFPD. The audit found that while large police departments in cities across the state and nation were generally demonstrating a trend towards increased use of non-sworn personnel, the SFPD had undergone a process of "reverse civilianization," in which an increasing number of sworn personnel were performing clerical, administrative and other functions that do not require peace officer status. The Budget Analyst found three negative consequences to this practice. First, the Budget Analyst estimated that the SFPD was incurring as much as $2.24 million per year in excess personnel costs by using sworn personnel to perform administrative, technical support and/or other non-police functions. Second, this practice can have a demoralizing effect on existing civilian employees who are being paid less for performing similar functions. Lastly, hiring civilian employees with greater expertise in functions being performed by sworn personnel would likely improve productivity.

2002 Status Report. In 2001-2002, the Police Department received $208,932,341 of General Fund support. In 2002-2003, the Police Department proposes $223,546,538 of General Fund support, which represents a 7% increase from the previous fiscal year. The majority of the Police Department"s budget is dedicated to salaries and fringe benefits. In FY 2001-2002, 93% percent of expenditures were in salaries and fringe benefits.¹²

Jurisdictional Comparison. Our survey of six large California police departments indicates that San Francisco has a much higher number of sworn employees as a percentage of total employees than is typical. Among those departments surveyed, the SFPD is 19% higher than the average.

 

Table 1: No. of Sworn Employees as a Percentage of Total Personnel, FY 2001-02
	No. of Full-time Employees
	Total	Sworn	% Sworn
Los Angeles	11,974	8,889	74%
Riverside	536	361	67%
Sacramento	1042	642	62%
San Diego	2896	2121	73%
San Jose	2019	1403	69%
Santa Ana	711	404	57%
San Francisco*	2360	2091	89%
Average			70%
*Excludes employees at the Airport
Source: OLA Survey, May 2002

Considering this data over time reveals that large California police departments show trends toward civilianization, while the SFPD shows the reverse trend. Table 2 below shows that the number of sworn employees as a percentage of total employees decreased in all except one (San Diego) of the jurisdictions surveyed. In contrast, the SFPD has added approximately 10% more sworn employees as a percentage of total personnel between FY 1990-91 and 2001-02, which maintains the SFPD"s highest percentage of sworn employees compared to -- and moves it further from the average of -- those police departments surveyed.

 

Table 2: Percent of Sworn Employees as a Percentage of Total Personnel Overtime
	No. of Full-time Employees			FY 90-91 - FY 01-02
	FY 1990-91	FY 1996-97	FY 2001-02**	Change in the Percentage of Sworn Employees
Los Angeles	76%	74%	74%	-2.00%
Riverside	70%	68%	67%	-3.00%
Sacramento	70%	62%	62%	-8.00%
San Diego	72%	76%	73%	1.00%
San Jose	78%	75%	69%	-9.00%
Santa Ana	68%	59%	57%	-11.00%
San Francisco*	79%	82%	89%	9.60%
Average	73%	71%	70%	-3.20%
*Excludes employees at the Airport
**The 911 dispatch personnel were transferred from the SFPD to ECD in FY1999-00 which resulted in a loss of 131 civilian positions..
Source: Budget Analyst 1998 Audit Report and OLA Survey, May 2002

The 1998 Budget Analyst Police Department Management Audit Report found that approximately 12 percent of sworn employees in the SFPD were assigned to administrative and technical support activities in the Administration Bureau, whereas an average of only five percent of sworn personnel were assigned to similar duties in the other police departments surveyed.¹³ Table 3 below shows the number of sworn employees as a percentage of total personnel in the Administration/ Technical Support classification in San Francisco almost doubled between FY 1996-97 and 2001-02, which indicates that more sworn personnel are performing tasks that do not require officer status.

 

Table 3: Job Classifications of Full-time Sworn Employees
	Administration/Technical Support
FY 1996-97	Total	Sworn	%Sworn
Los Angeles	2,298	663	29%
Riverside	123	16	13%
Sacramento	304	22	7%
San Diego	487	75	15%
San Jose	427	70	16%
Santa Ana	116	18	16%
San Francisco	428	152	36%
Average	598	145	19%
FY 2001-02
San Francisco	397	253	64%*
Source: Budget Analyst 1998 Audit Report and OLA Survey, May 2002 *Change in part due to shifting light duty officers from other classifications to Administration and Technical Support classifications.

Restrictions on Civilianization. In June of 1994, San Francisco voters approved Proposition D, which established a minimum level of 1,971 full duty sworn personnel. The Charter provision, codified in Section 4.127, stated that the SFPD should review opportunities to civilianize as many sworn positions as possible in order to maximize police presence in the community. The Charter Amendment also specified that all new officers should be dedicated to neighborhood community policing, patrol and investigations. The City has placed a priority on hiring sworn personnel to reach the Proposition D mandate.¹⁴ As a consequence, the Department cannot hire civilian personnel without increasing its budget. Thus, civilianization would result in added personnel costs for the SFPD. As was noted in the 1998 Budget Analyst Police Department Management Audit Report, the minimum level of staffing restrictions imposed by Proposition D combined with budget restrictions have prevented the SFPD from complying with the other provisions of Proposition D, in particular civilianization and an increase in the number of sworn personnel dedicated to community policing.

Conclusion. The staffing level requirement of Proposition D combined with budgetary restrictions have prevented the SFPD from complying with the other provisions of Proposition D, in particular civilianization and an increase in the number of sworn personnel dedicated to community policing. According to SFPD staff, increasing civilian staff would permit the SFPD to achieve greater efficiencies. According to the 1998 Budget Analyst Police Department Audit Report (Volume 2), civilianization would allow the SFPD to realize savings without reducing the current level of police services or to hire additional police officers dedicated to community policing, patrol and investigations.

The trend in the SFPD of increases in sworn employees as a percentage of total personnel over the last 10 years, while other large police departments statewide demonstrate the opposite trend further supports the 1996 and 1998 Budget Analyst Police Department Management Audit Reports recommendation that the Board of Supervisors should consider, as a policy matter, submitting a ballot measure to the electorate to amend Charter Section 4.127 (Proposition D) in order to facilitate the civilianization of sworn positions in the Police Department.

6. Why is the Senior Escort Program"s budget in the Police Department and not in the Department of Aging & Adult Services or in the Department of Human Services? (presented 5/21/02)

The Senior Escort Program (SEP) is a civilian-staffed crime prevention program, operating under the San Francisco Police Department, aimed at stopping victimization of the elderly. The methods used include, but are not limited to, escorting walking seniors (over 60 years old), escorting by taxi and bus to medical and other appointments, and group escorting of seniors via a van fleet. In addition, the program provides crime prevention information and education.

According to Captain John Goldberg of the Police Department, the Program was started with Federal funds under the 1973 Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA). Police officials believe that the program was initially a project of the Commission on Aging. However, when CETA funds decreased, the Program was transferred to the Police Department as a crime prevention effort, according to Captain Goldberg.

According to Darrick Lam of the Department of Aging and Adult Services (DAAS), the Program should be a unit within DAAS since its clientele are seniors and disabled. Mr. Lam advises that the Senior Escort Program may be incorporated into DAAS"s network of Neighborhood Senior Central districts. However, according to Mr. Lam, Aging and Adult Services will absorb the In-Home Supportive Services from the Department of Human Services (January 2003), which will be a major undertaking; and furthermore, the Department is going through a major leadership change. The exiting Executive Director and Deputy Executive Director will leave their posts by June 2002. Therefore, the inclusion of the Senior Escort Program may not be feasible at this time, but should considered at a later date, according to Mr. Lam.

Captain Goldberg advised the Legislative Analyst that the relocation of the Program from the Police Department to DAAS is a policy matter for the Mayor and the Board of Supervisors. Notably, in a 1995-1996 Civil Grand Jury report, the Police Department agreed that the Program would best function under "an affiliation with an existing public service or social service agency (where) SEP would be better able to serve the growing senior population, and to expand and improve the range of SEP services."

Public Defender, District Attorney, and Police

1. What are the staffing levels for each of these departments, and are they proportionate to one another? (presented 5/21/02)

The following table shows the number of Full-Time Equivalent (FTE) positions in the Police Department, District Attorney"s Office, and Public Defender"s Office for the 6-year period from FY 95-96 to FY 00-01:

 

DEPTs.	95-96	96-97	97-98	98-99	99-00	00-01
Police	2,255	2,260	2,272	2,310	2,425	2,437
DA	220	217	223	249	263	272
Public Defender	99	99	101	106	114	116

This information was taken from a Controller"s Office report entitled San Francisco"s Criminal Justice System prepared for the Mayor"s Crime Summit on March 7, 2001. There are several points that should be considered when reviewing this information. Between FY 95-96 and FY 00-01, the number of FTE positions increased by 17% for the Public Defender"s Office, as compared to 8% for the Police Department and 24% for the District Attorney"s Office. It is important to note that the Controller"s report does not provide a detailed breakdown of the number of FTE positions, which are General Fund supported and non-General Fund supported. Thus, it is not possible to determine the City"s level of staff funding over time. However, the report does show that all positions in the Public Defender"s Office were General Fund supported except for one FTE in FY 99-00 and one FTE in 00-01. The Legislative Analyst recommends that the Board of Supervisors direct our office to look more closely at the number of General Fund supported positions versus non-General Fund supported positions to better determine the City"s staff funding over time.

Department of Public Health

1. Are health prevention programs more cost effective than treatment? (presented 4/30/02)

According to Dr. Mitch Katz, Director of the Department of Public Health, there is a large body of medical research showing that many illnesses can be prevented with timely interventions. Many prevention interventions are cost-saving because by spending a small amount of money initially, we are able to prevent costly illnesses later on. Other prevention interventions "pay for themselves"; in other words, they are cost neutral because the amount of money spent on the intervention is equal to the amount of money saved. Besides the financial savings, prevention saves human suffering by avoiding disease, both for the individual and for their family. In many cases create societal gains such as avoidance of crime.

The prevention interventions which have been proven to have the greatest cost-savings are: childhood immunizations, influenza immunizations for adults, smoking cessation, methadone maintenance, and HIV-prevention interventions including needle exchange, small-group sessions, HIV testing and counseling, and community mobilizations. The San Francisco Health Department performs all these interventions.¹⁵

The best example of a "cost neutral" intervention is supportive housing. A large body of research shows that the cost of providing housing with supportive services is recouped in decreased emergency room visits, hospitalizations, and incarcerations. The SF Health Department has tracked the medical costs of those patients that have been placed in supportive housing and have demonstrated that their medical costs significantly decline after being placed in supportive housing.

2. Can a cost/benefit analysis be conducted concerning this notion of "prevention" as defined by the DPH? (presented 4/30/02)

According to Dr. Katz and Ms. Monique Zmuda, Chief Financial Officer, Public Health Department, the department has not conducted a cost/benefit analysis on whether funding prevention intervention may achieve cost savings. Dr. Katz advises that conducting a cost/benefit analysis is complicated and may be inconclusive.

For instance, although the department would like to spend more on prevention so as to spend less on end-stage avoidable health care costs, they face two major challenges in implementing increased prevention. First, the cost savings of prevention do not necessarily accrue the same year as the costs. For example, smoking cessation and HIV prevention for teenagers are two powerfully cost saving interventions. However, the costs that would be saved would not occur for ten to forty years (the latter in the case of smoking cessation). Because the Health Department must provide care to persons who are currently suffering from HIV/AIDS or the consequences of smoking, they haven"t had enough money to pay both the costs of treating those persons who are currently ill and the costs of avoiding future illness through prevention. Second, some of the savings of prevention do not accrue to the Health Department. For example, much of the cost savings of methadone treatment occur due to lowered crime rates and decreased incarceration (incarceration is a very expensive general fund obligation.) There is currently no way to transfer dollars saved in the criminal justice system due to substance treatment back to the health department for providing more prevention services.

Notwithstanding the difficulties in conducting a cost/benefit analysis to determine cost savings associated with specific prevention interventions, the Department would undertake selected analysis to quantify savings if grant or other funding were available for such a study.

3. Oshun Center - Provide a description and status report on the Oshun Center addressed during public comment on April 30, 2002 (presented 5/14/02)

Oshun Center is a 24- hour drop-in substance abuse prevention and treatment program located at the corner of Turk and Taylor Streets in the Tenderloin and is part of The Haight Ashbury Free Clinic, Inc. (HAFCI). According to the Director, Ms. Verna Chapman, Oshun was first funded by a FY1999/00 Department of Public Health (DPH) Treatment on Demand Initiative. Oshun provides drug treatment, case management, housing referrals, employment services, mental health therapy, and on-site child watch with the intent of empowering women to seek wellness and recovery. Oshun also provides showers, food, group therapy, and client-centered counseling.

According to James Alexander at DPH, as part of its required 10% reductions for FY2002/03, the Department has proposed to cut Oshun"s budget by $337,712, all of it from the general fund. Such a budget cut would completely eliminate Oshun"s outpatient programs (which currently is contracted to serve 176 unduplicated clients) and reduce the number of unduplicated clients in the prevention program by 44% (resulting in a loss of service to 1,514 of the 3,459 unduplicated clients provided for in the contract). Mr. Alexander feels that while DPH would rather not make this reduction, the decision to reduce this program preceded the reporting of the February "02 utilization data and was based under utilization of the Oshun Center in prior fiscal years, particularly in outpatient services. In fiscal years 1999/00 and 2000/01, when the program was just getting off the ground, Oshun outpatient services had utilization rates of just 4% and 27% respectively. For fiscal year 2001/02, however, Oshun outpatient services met its contract goal of serving 3,250 units of service in February and is projected by DPH staff to exceed its target for fiscal year 2002/03 by approximately 170%.

Department of Public Works (DPW)

1. When will the News Rack Program start collecting fees and how secure are these revenues? (presented 4/23/02)

On April 17, 2002, the Finance Committee approved (1) an ordinance amending the San Francisco Public Works Code in regard to the regulation of news racks, (2) the Contract between the City and County of San Francisco and Clear Channel Adshel, Inc., and (3) the settlement of the lawsuit brought by newspaper publishers against the City. The Ordinance, Contract, and Settlement are scheduled to go before the full Board for the first reading on April 22 and for the second reading on April 29. According to DPW, if these items are all approved on April 29, the News Rack Program will begin in May and the collection of fees should begin 90 to 120 days after the program begins. Thus, the News Rack Program may start collecting fees as early as August 2002.

 

With respect to how secure these revenues are, the proposed Ordinance, which amends the Public Works Code, states that the permit fee is initially $30 per box annually. It is important to note that the News Rack Program may not be used as a revenue-generating source for the City. The proposed Ordinance states that the annual revenues generated from these fees shall not exceed the City"s costs associated with implementing, administering and enforcing the program. Of course, the total amount of fees collected per year will depend on the number of boxes permitted out.

Questions Raised at Budget Committee Meetings April - June, 2002.

 

	Issue	Follow-up	Status	Reference Document
1	Administrative Services - Make specific recommendation regarding fleet management	Legislative Analyst (OLA)	In progress, to Budget Committee by 6/25	5/20 OLA Memo
2	Administrative Services, Central shops - Can we make the vehicle fleet more efficient? What are their performance measures? How do Departments use their vehicles? Can we evaluate the Fleet Management Program that the Dept is looking into?	OLA	Complete	4/16 OLA Memo
3	Administrative Services, Real Estate - Analysis of renting vs. purchasing property for City use.	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
4	Aging and Adult Services - Overall inconsistencies in positions, budget and performance measures.	Controller	Complete
5	Airport Commission - Explain the $628,000,000 to $ 603,000,000 discrepancy	Controller	Complete
6	Airport Commission - How will the reduction in work orders impact other City Departments?	Controller	Complete
7	Airport Commission - List of work orders, fees, and changes	Controller	Complete
8	Board of Appeals - Why no 5% COLA absorption in the budget?	OLA	Complete	5/20 OLA Memo
9	BOS - LAFCO - identify constraints within budget	Budget Analyst	Complete	4/22 Budget Analyst Memo
10	BOS - Review the speed of BOS transmissions of legislation to other Departments.	Budget Analyst	Complete	4/15 Budget Analyst Memo
11	BOS - Verify the number of web hits identified in performance measures.	Budget Analyst	Complete	4/22 Budget Analyst Memo
12	City Attorney"s Office - How many FTEs are allocated to different areas in the office?	OLA	Complete	4/16 OLA Memo
13	Cuts to Contracts - Please provide a list of contracts with reductions over 2 million	Mayor"s Budget Office
14	Department of Human Services - the Supportive Housing Employment Collaborative (SHEC) asked that $266,205 be restored.	OLA	Complete	4/16 OLA Memo
15	DPW - Could the Treasurers" office collect graffiti fees instead of DPW ?	Budget Analyst	Complete	N/A
16	DPW - Fees for service and/or revenue potential for next year of the following programs: Asphalt plant, shopping cart recovery, graffiti removal	Budget Analyst	Complete	5/7 Budget Analyst Memo
17	DPW - Follow-up on when the newspaper stand program will start collecting fees and how secure are revenues	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
18	DTIS - Increase in administrative staff and materials and supplies while decreasing program staff - why	Budget Analyst	Complete	5/7 Budget Analyst Memo
19	DTIS - Rent versus purchase at 1 Market Plaza	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
20	Economic Development - (1) Why no performance measures for Small Business Affairs, Public Finance or Seismic Safety Program, and (2) What is the value of the First Source Hiring Program (only 200-250 shown in performance measures)? What are the costs of implementing this program total? Per job created?	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
21	Ethics Commission - Can they share a Commission Secretary position with Department of Elections?	Budget Analyst	Complete	4/15 Budget Analyst Memo
22	Fire Department - Follow-up on Margaret Brodkin issues	Budget Analyst	Complete, pending 4/30 Police Hearing and 5/14 Fire Hearing.	4/15 Budget Analyst Memo
23	General Fee Questions - Can automatic COLAs be included in fee legislation to account for increases in costs? And, more basically, do the fees fully recover the costs, where appropriate? If not, has Board/Mayor clearly made a policy decision to subsidize the service? Can we include an automatic sunset with fee increases imposed to offset budget deficits?	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
24	General Issue - Earmarking - The current system permits departments to transfer limited funds between various areas in budget. Can the BOS "earmark" specific funds for specific purposes?	Controller	Complete
25	General Issue - Performance Measures	Controller	Complete	5/20 Memo "Performance Measures Discussed in Committee Hearings"
26	General Issue - Tax Credits -Benefits	Controller	Complete
27	Public Health - Can cost/benefit analysis be conducted to determine whether funding a prevention program, rather than not funding a program can achieve savings? For example, New York study found it is more expensive to keep people homeless than to house people.	OLA	Complete	4/23 OLA Memo
28	General Question - List of priorities for delaying capital projects	Mayor"s Budget Office
29	General Question - Where has growth occurred in City departments over the last 5-7 years, during economic boom period?	Controller	Complete	4/22 Materials requested: 5 Year Position History & Budget Deletions FY 2002-2003
30	Health Department - Laundry - Explain how we can do this in conformance with the MOU?	Mayor"s Budget Office
31	Health Department - Laundry - Please detail whether contracted out laundry workers will receive the prevailing wage and benefits equivalent to City employees	Mayor"s Budget Office
32	Health Department - Laundry - Please provide a list of other alternatives and/or the methodology used to come to decision	Mayor"s Budget Office
33	Human Resources - should they be a priority department?	Budget Analyst	Complete	4/15 Budget Analyst Memo
34	MTA Budget	Controller
35	Oshun Center - What is this program addressed in public comment	OLA	Complete	5/13 OLA memo
36	Planning - list and details of fees	OLA	Complete	OLA Memo 5/20
37	Police - Special Events cost recovery	OLA	Complete	OLA Memo 5/20
38	Police Department - Review civilianization rates in other jurisdictions compared to the SFPD	OLA	Complete	5/14 OLA memo
39	Police Department - Supply statistics regarding number of homicides, and apprehensions overtime	OLA	Complete	OLA Memo 5/20
40	Police- Why is the Senior Escort Program"s budget in the Police and not in Aging & Adult Services or DHS?	OLA	Complete	OLA Memo 5/20
41	Police-What are other jurisdictions doing in "prevention" efforts that SF is not?	OLA	Complete	5/13 OLA Memo
42	Port - Follow-up on what happened last and proposed for next year regarding marketing changes	Budget Analyst	Complete	5/13 Budget Analyst Report
43	Port - why 40,530,129 fund balance anomaly in budget	Controller	Complete
44	Public Defender, District Attorney and Police - what are criminal justice staffing levels for each department, are they proportionate to one another, if not, why	OLA	Complete	OLA Memo 5/20
45	Revenue Generation - what kind of savings can we achieve under a voluntary time off program?	Controller
46	San Francisco Food Bank Cut	Mayor"s Budget Office
47	SHEC - How is this service different from other services	OLA	Complete	4/22 OLA Memo
48	Sheriff and Police Department - Review Sheriff"s program regarding recidivism and forward information to Police Department	OLA	Complete	5/13 OLA memo
49	State budget - Mayor"s Office will update weekly and provide schedule of State budget.	Mayor"s Budget Office	Ongoing
50	Talkline - are the 5 programs duplicative?	OLA	In progress	OLA Memo 5/20
51	Talkline and FEDCO (eviction defense) as anticipated recurring question already identified above with SHEC	OLA	Complete	4/16 OLA Memo

 

	Attachment I
	POLICE DEPARTMENT
	Budget Analyst Audit Recommendations Impacting the City/County General Fund
	Phase I - 12/1996
	BA Audit Recommendation	Budget Savings/Benefit		Status		Notes
1	Scheduling: Switching district station police officers from a 4day/10hour to a 5day/8hour work week to reduce the need for 40 sworn officers	$2,414,670		Not Implemented		A modified shift schedule is a benefit negotiated between the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Officers" Association. A 4/10 Plan, or other modified work schedule, are accepted practices in most law enforcement agencies. If the City is to attract and retain qualified members within its sworn ranks, it is essential to offer comparable benefits and working conditions. This work schedule is part of a comprehensive package of wages, hours and working conditions. If this benefit were to be eliminated, the Association would likely negotiate for a benefit of equal or greater value.
2	Scheduling: Overtime cost reductions as a result of #1	$840,494		Not Implemented		This recommendation is based upon the elimination of the 4/10 work schedule. See above note.
3	Overtime: Introducing flexible time for investigators and paying investigative standby pay at straight rather than overtime rate of pay	$504,304		Not Implemented		Flexible time for investigators is a modified work schedule. As such, it is subject to negotiation between the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Officers" Association and was not included in the contract adopted on July 16, 2001 and approved by the Board of Supervisors. For flextime to result in cost savings, hours would have to be adjusted on a daily basis to accommodate investigative purposes. However, the availability of a victim or witness is unknown until the inspector receives the case. In most instances, they are interviewed the day the case is received, so the use of flextime would not result in cost savings. Additionally, investigative overtime savings may be offset by increased costs for court appearances prior to the start of their workday.
4	Overtime: Paying court standby pay at the straight time rate and implementing the provisions of Prop. 115	$964,398		Fully Implemented		Court standby is a benefit negotiated between the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Officers" Association and is included in the MOU adopted on July 16, 2001 and approved by the Board of Supervisors. Court standby pay is compensated as a premium pay, rather than overtime, and is equal to two hours of overtime compensation or three hours of base rate. If the City is to attract and retain qualified members within its sworn ranks, it is essential to offer comparable benefits and working conditions. Standby compensation is part of a comprehensive package of wages, hours and working conditions. If this benefit was eliminated, the Association would likely negotiate for a benefit of equal of greater value.
						The Department has fully implemented the provisions of Prop 115. The Department believes that the expenses for court overtime, with the funding, should be transferred from the Police Department to the District Attorney. This would create a financial incentive to manage the issuance of subpoenas to police officers in a more efficient manner.
5	Overtime: Require district sergeants to delegate arrest-related duties to officers who have sufficient time remaining on their shifts to perform such duties without incurring overtime	$114,836		Partially Implemented		Although there is no written policy, supervisors regularly delegate arrest related duties to other officers as is reasonable and appropriate based upon the totality of circumstances. The decision to delegate arrest related work to other officers is decided on a case by case basis. Decision factors include the amount of time anticipated to complete the task, the availability of other officers, pending calls and other district priorities. In addition, care must be taken in deciding what, if any tasks, are appropriate to be delegated. In complex cases, information or evidence could be lost, confused or omitted. Additionally, overtime savings at district stations may be offset by greater costs for officers having to appear in court. While overtime savings at the stations would be one-time, officers required to appear in court could be required to appear on multiple occasions.
6	Overtime: Establish overtime limits	$220,000		Fully Implemented		Each unit within the Department has an overtime limit which is closely monitored by the command staff. In the current FY, the reduction in overtime, compared to last year, is approximately two million dollars.
7	Overtime Policies and Practices: change related policies and practices including payment of 10 hours of overtime for special events even if less is worked, inability to change an officer"s schedule > 3 hrs, and paying overtime on the same day or week as a leave of absence.	$1,957,200		Substantially Implemented		The Department pays officers for hours worked and regularly assigns officers to shifts of four, six or eight hours to work special events. Rather than pay overtime unnecessarily for a full shift, the Department often adjusts the starting times of officers (up to three hours) or allows officers to work up to four hours of overtime before or after the start of a regular shift. In addition, the current MOU allows the Department to adjust starting times up to seven hours on July 4th, October 31st and December 31st. The ability to adjust starting times for non-emergency special events is a working condition negotiated between the City and County of San Francisco and the San Francisco Police Officers" Association and included in the MOU approval on July 16, 2001 and adopted by the Board of Supervisors. The ability to negotiate work schedules is an accepted practice in law enforcement agencies. If the City is to attract and retain qualified members within its sworn ranks, it is essential to offer comparable benefits and working conditions.
						The work schedule is part of a comprehensive package of wages, hours and working conditions. If this benefit was eliminated, the Association would likely negotiate for a benefit of equal or greater value.
8	Special Event Overtime: form a special event unit under the Field Operations Bureau to reduce overtime costs	$927,149		Not Implemented		Consistent with the Department"s Community Policing philosophy, district stations are responsible for events within their districts. It is most appropriate for officers who know the district and the community to interact with the residents and neighborhood leaders at street fairs and festivals. Not only can officers from the district respond with knowledge of the area to issues of immediate concern, but the interaction can establish a dialogue to address long term problems. By necessity, the establishment of a Special Event Unit would drain additional personnel and resources from district stations. While the Department acknowledges that officers are sometimes detailed to other stations to handle special events, the establishment of a Special Event Unit would permanently detail officers away from the district stations. Additionally, the Department believes that it is essential that all officers be trained and have experience in policing special events and in crowd control. San Francisco is a site for many large special events, including celebrations, protests and demonstrations.
						At times, some of these events have turned ugly and violent. To the degree that all officers have experience working at these special events, the Department is better prepared and able to respond to crowd control emergencies.
9	Special Event Cost Recovery: improve the city"s ability to recoup costs associated with Special Law Enforcement Services for special events	$503,607		Not Implemented		The recommendation to amend legislation to improve the City"s ability to recover costs associated with special events was a recommendation for action by the Board. As such, it is a policy matter for the Board. (See attached.)
10	Administrative: Improve purchasing and inventory management	$264,000		Substantially Implemented		The Property Control Division has implemented a variety of steps to improve its efficiencies, including "just-in-time" purchasing for consumables, increased delivery of bulk items to district stations to reduce staff time, and a thorough screening of all supply requisitions for authorization and appropriate quantities. The Property Control Division constantly compares prices between approved vendors and uses State of California procurement programs to ensure the lowest available cost. In addition, the Property Control Division has reduced costs and generated additional revenue by using an "on-line" auction to dispose of property.
	TOTAL PHASE I SAVINGS	$8,710,658		4%		of total PD General Fund budget
	TOTAL PHASE I NOT YET IMPLEMENTED	$7,411,424

 

	POLICE DEPARTMENT
	Phase II - 5/1998
	BA Audit Recommendation	Budget Savings/Benefit	Status	Notes
1	Investigations Overtime: implement a cross-training program, create a Rebookings Unit, and adjust staffing levels based on relative caseloads to reduce overtime expenditures	$240,000	Partially Implemented	Cross-training: Newly appointed inspectors are cross-trained in three different details and then assigned to a unit on a permanent basis. Once inspectors are permanently assigned, they develop expertise in a given area. Regular rotation of inspectors would create inefficiencies leading to less effectiveness in solving cases and a decreased workload due to inexperience. Rebooking Unit: The Department continues to have a rebooking unit for narcotics cases. Narcotics cases generally lack "victims" to be interviewed and only the "witnesses" are police officers. The volume of the cases, with little additional investigation, allow for these cases to be consolidated in a rebooking unit. Other types of cases require a formal investigation. The Department believes that specialized investigative units are best able to prepare cases for successful prosecution in court.
				Adjust Staffing Levels: The Department regularly adjusts staffing levels based upon workload on a section by section basis in order to optimize distribution. Transfers between units and assignments of new inspectors to investigative details are made after analyzing staffing levels, workload and Department priorities.
2	Modified Duty and Temporary Disability: phase-in the elimination of 66 of the 121 positions currently used for modified duty and temporary disability leave	$4,223,208	Not Implemented	Elimination of 66 modified duty positions would require the hiring of a like number of civilian employees to perform this work. As new civilian employees became available, the Department would be able to eliminate a like number of modified duty positions. To date, the City has been unable to fund the necessary civil service positions to replace modified duty police officers. By necessity, modified duty police officers continue to perform these required tasks.
3	Submit a ballot measure to amend Charter section 4.127 (Prop. D) to facilitate the civilianization of administrative, technical support and/or other non-police functions	$2,242,618	Not Implemented	The recommendation to amend legislation to facilitate the civilianization of administrative, technical and support functions was a recommendation for action by the Board of Supervisors. As such, it is a policy matter for the Board. (See Attached.)
4	Form a special events unit under the Special Operations Division to reduce special event overtime expenditures	$1,100,000	Not Implemented	(See Phase I, #8 above)
5	Improve the Police Department"s ability to recover the full cost of providing police coverage at certain special events	$650,000	Not Implemented	(See Phase I, #9 above)
	TOTAL PHASE II SAVINGS	$8,455,826	4%	of total PD General Fund budget
	TOTAL PHASE II NOT YET IMPLEMENTED	$8,455,826
	TOTAL PHASE I & II	$17,166,484	8.3%	of total PD General Fund budget
	TOTAL PHASE I & II NOT YET IMPLEMENTED	$15,867,250	7.7%	of total PD General Fund budget

¹ For example, a June 2000 independent analysis of the Planning Department"s fees by DMG Maximus found that only 7 of the 19 fees levied by the Department recovered the full costs of providing the service.

² One town hall meeting was held per district plus a second meeting in District 1 June 6 after the OLA"s presentation to the Board.

³ These averages reflect the number of duplicated calls per available work day (ie, 260 weekdays for the 5-day/week APIFH and 365 days for the remaining three which operate 7-days/week) and only the General Fund portion of the total cost (the CHALK Youthline and California HIV/AIDS Information and Referral Hotline receive additional funding from other sources).

⁴ Administrative services with DMG/Maximus, the Department of the Environment and the Controller"s Office have conducted research on how to improve our fleets.

⁵ This amount includes 26 new passenger vehicles requested from General Fund departments.

⁶ The City has one of the nation"s largest alternative fuel vehicle fleets and the Clean Air Program has raised millions of dollars in grant funds to subsidize this effort.

⁷ The present maintenance management system goes back to 1995. In order to calculate the first 3 missing years, and since all of the vehicles within these two groups came with a minimum three year 36,000 warranty, Central Shops ran a report for the first three years on the 1996 vehicles in group two, to get an average of what was spent on the first three warranty years. Central Shops took that average and applied it to the 1992-year vehicles.

⁸ Identified by the Controller"s Office in a March 14, 2002 memo to the Board of Supervisors.

⁹ According to Mr. Brooks, there has not been any systematic review of vehicle usage Citywide and while the Mayor"s budget staff and the Budget Analyst have required departments to submit information to support retention of their vehicles, the information has not been regularly provided and few vehicles have been removed from departments.

10 Data compiled by CB Richard Ellis for leases in Civic Center as determined by fourth quarter 2001, indicated a market rate $2.11 per square foot per month.

¹¹ Last two recommendations in Reponses from SFPD, Fiscal Division Matrix are duplications from Phase I recommendations.

¹² Excludes work orders.

¹³ For the purpose of comparability, the OLA surveyed the same California police departments in 2002 that the Budget Analyst surveyed in 1998.

¹⁴ Although the current level of 2,091 is above the minimum staffing level of 1,971 full duty sworn officers, officers assigned to modified duty, temporary disability leave, and other who are not performing "full duty" assignment are excluded from the Proposition D count.

¹⁵ Stryker J, Coates TJ, DeCarlo P, et al. Prevention of HIV Infection. JAMA. 1995;273:1143-1148.

Wodak Alex, Director, Alcohol and Drug Service, St. Vincent"s Hospital, Darlinghurst, NSW 2010, Australia. Prevention Works. International AIDS Society Publication. Schneider Institute for Health Policy. Substance Abuse. February 2001.