revised coj fy 2012 budget recommendations report

8/6/2019 REVISED COJ FY 2012 Budget Recommendations Report

1/132

CCOO UU NN CC II LL OO FF TT HH EE DD II SS TT RRII CC TT OO FF CC OO LL UUMM BB II AACCOOMMMM II TT TT EE EE OO NN TT HH EE JJ UU DD II CC II AARRYY

F I S C A L YE A R 2 0 1 2 C O M M I T T E E B U D G E T RE P O R T

C o u n c i l B u d g e t D i r e c t o r C e r t i f i c a t i o n : D a t e :

TO: All Councilmembers

FROM: Councilmember Phil MendelsonChairman, Committee on the Judiciary

DATE: May 11, 2011SUBJECT: Report and Recommendations of the Committee on the Judiciary on the Fiscal

Year 2012 Budget and corresponding Budget Support Act

The Committee on the Judiciary, having conducted hearings and received testimony onthe Mayors proposed operating and capital budgets for Fiscal Year 2012 for the agencies underits purview, reports its recommendations for consideration by the Committee of the Whole. The

Committee also comments on several sections in the Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Support Act of2011, and makes its own proposals.

C O N T E N T S Introduction iSummaryTables iv

Fiscal Year 2012 Agency Budget Summary Table ivFiscal Year 2012 Full-Time Equivalent Table vFiscal Year 2012 Agency Capital Budget Summary viCommittee Transfers vii

SummaryofCommitteeBudgetRecommendations viiiAgencyFiscalYear2012BudgetRecommendations 1

Office of the Attorney General 2Metropolitan Police Department 9Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department 18Police Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement System 28Department of Corrections 31District of Columbia National Guard 38Homeland Security and Emergency Management Agency 42Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure 47Judicial Nomination Commission 49Office of Police Complaints 51Sentencing and Criminal Code Revision Commission 53Office of the Chief Medical Examiner 58

Office of Administrative Hearings 61Criminal Justice Coordinating Council 65Forensic Laboratory Technician Training Program 67Office of Unified Communications 70Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice 75

FY 2012 Budget Request Act Recommendations 84FY 2012 Budget Support Act Recommendations 86CommitteeAction 111

DRAFT


2/132

i

II NN TT RROO DD UU CC TT II OO NN

The Committee on the Judiciary (Committee) presents its recommendations for theDistrict of Columbias fiscal year 2012 budget and the corresponding Budget Support Act.

The Committee is responsible for matters affecting the judiciary and judicial procedurewhich are within the authority of the Council; matters affecting decedents estates and fiduciaryaffairs; matters affecting administrative law and procedure; matters affecting criminal law andprocedure; matters arising from or pertaining to the police and fire regulations of the District ofColumbia; and other matters related to police protection, correctional institutions (includingyouth corrections), fire prevention, emergency medical services, homeland security, criminaljustice, and public safety.

The Committee oversees all of the public safety agencies within the District and interactswith local and federal prosecuting authorities, serving as the Councils liaison with federalpartners in the justice system, including the D.C. Courts, the D.C. Public Defender Service, theCourt Services and Offender Supervision Agency, and the U.S. Parole Commission. Thefollowing agencies come within the purview of the Committee: Access to Justice Initiative;Child Support Guideline Commission; Commission on Judicial Disabilities and Tenure;Corrections Information Council; Criminal Justice Coordinating Council; Department ofCorrections; Deputy Mayor for Public Safety and Justice; Fire and Emergency Medical Services;Forensic Health and Science Laboratories; Homeland Security and Emergency ManagementAgency; Judicial Nomination Commission; Justice Grants Administration; Metropolitan PoliceDepartment; District of Columbia National Guard; Office of Administrative Hearings; Office of

Police Complaints; Office of Unified Communications; Office of Victim Services; Office of theAttorney General; Office of the Chief Medical Examiner; Police Officers and Fire FightersRetirement System; and the District of Columbia Sentencing and Criminal Code RevisionCommission.

On April 1, 2010, Mayor Vincent C. Gray submitted to the Council of the District ofColumbia a proposed operating budget and financial plan for the upcoming fiscal year. TheMayors budget proposal for fiscal year 2012 provides for a gross funds budget of $8.986 billion(with a Local Funds comprising of $5.5 billion, or 61.6 percent of the total budget), 1 and seeks toclose a $322.1 million budget gap through a combination of both new revenue generation andexpenditure reductions. The proposal also shows a government-wide reduction of 170.5 full-time

equivalents compared to the current fiscal year.

2

1Public Briefing on the Mayors Fiscal Year 2012 Proposed Budget and Financial Plan: Public Hearing Before theCouncil of the District of Columbia, 2-3 (Apr. 1, 2011) (written testimony of Vincent C. Gray, Mayor of the Districtof Columbia). The fiscal year 2012 gross funds budget represents an increase of $164.9 million, or 1.9 percent, overthe fiscal year 2011 approved budget. Id.2 FY 2012 Budget Overview: One CityRising to the Challenge, Government of the District of Columbia, MayorVincent C. Gray, 2-5 (Apr. 2011). The Mayors budget proposal seeks to close the $322.1 million budget gapthrough: $187.0 million in expenditure cuts from the CFOs Current Services Funding Level Budget (58 percent);


3/132

ii

In order to review the Mayors budget proposal, determine the wants and needs of eachagency under its jurisdiction, and provide the public with an opportunity to comment, theCommittee held budget hearings for the agencies under its purview as follows:

Friday,April8,2011at10:00a.m.intheCouncilChamber MetropolitanPoliceDepartment(MPD) Fire&EmergencyMedicalServices(FEMS)

ConsolidatedForensicsLab(CFL)

OfficeofPoliceComplaints(OPC)

OfficeofAdministrativeHearings(OAH)

Thursday,April14,2011at10:00a.m.inHearingRoom123 JudicialNominationCommission(JNC) CorrectionsInformationCouncil(CIC)

CommissiononJudicialDisabilities&Tenure(CJDT) CriminalJusticeCoordinatingCouncil(CJCC)

Sentencing&CriminalCodeRevisionComm.(SCCRC) JusticeGrantsAdministration(JGA)

AccesstoJustice(ATJ) OfficeofVictimServices(OVS)

Monday,April30,2010at10:00a.m.inHearingRoom412 DCNationalGuard(DCNG) OfficeofUnifiedCommunications(OUC)

DeputyMayorforPublicSafety&Justice(DMPSJ) DepartmentofCorrections(DOC)

OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral(OAG) HomelandSecurity&EmergencyMgmt.(HSEMA)

OfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminer(OCME)

The Mayors fiscal year 2012 budget proposal held most of the agency budgets within the

public safety and justice cluster constant at their fiscal year 2011 level. While the agencies inthis cluster are, under the proposal, required to absorb mandatory union step increases andinflation adjustments, these agencies were, for the most part, not required to sustain anyadditional cuts. One priority identified by the Mayor in presenting the budget to the Council wasthe need for increased funding for hiring new police recruits. Specifically, the Mayor testified

$127.2 million in revenue increases (39 percent); and $7.9 million in additional income from leasing, expandedsales, and advertising (3 percent). Id. at 5.


4/132

iii

before the Council on April 1, 2011 that in reviewing the Metropolitan police Departments(MPD) budget it was learned that the agency had stopped hiring new recruits. This placed MPDat risk of falling below an acceptable level of police officers. The Mayors budget proposalseeks to remedy this through funding an additional 120 officers funded through attrition.3

In previous budget proposals submitted to the Council it has been the Committeesexperience that obfuscation replaced sound budgeting. This would require the exertion of moretime and resources to obtain details on the proposal, and then resolve problems neither identifiednor acknowledged, at the expense of working with agencies to meet their fiscal needs. Incontrast, this Committee is pleased to see that the Mayor has paid close attention to the publicsafety cluster in his budget proposal, and that sincere efforts, and not budget gimmicks, weremade to fund adequately the agencies and services under this Committees purview. Indeed,these agencies and programs have largely been kept at the levels approved by this Committee inprevious fiscal years.

Likewise, the Committee appreciates the collaborative efforts of the Executive in both the

development, and the Councils subsequent consideration, of the budget proposal. ThisCommittee has had cause in consideration of previous budgets to chastise the Executive for alack of transparency and unwillingness to work with the Council in establishing the Districts budget. The Districts budgetary process is dependent upon the Councils ability to obtaininformation and details about the Mayors proposed budget. This not only includes the dollarfigures, but also the plans that are in place to implement the policy proposals on which thebudget is based. In contrast to previous budget cycles, the Executive has been forthcoming andhelpful, even proactive in offering assistance, in working with the Committee on the proposedbudget. This collaborative relationship helps ensure that the budget presented by the Council isone that truly serves the needs of the District.

Having thoroughly reviewed the proposed budget, the Committee believes that therecommendations contained herein provide each agency under its purview with the fundsnecessary to fulfill its core mission, and represent the policy priorities that best serve the peopleof the District of Columbia.

* * *

3 Gray Testimony, supra note 1, at 9.


5/132

Committee on the Judiciary Summary TablesFiscal Year 2012 Budget Report May 11, 2011

iv

SS UU MM MMAARRYY TTAABB LL EE SS

F I S C A L YEAR20 1 2 AGENCY BUDGET SUMMARY T ABLE (dollarsinthousands)


6/132

Committee on the Judiciary

Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Report

Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

OfficeoftheAttorney

General(CB)

LocalFunds 56,039 50,220 56,368 56,661 293 0.5%

SpecialPurpose 3,813 8,093 1,624 1,624 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 18,598 20,053 19,613 19,613 0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 102 139 144 144 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 14,065 16,446 16,490 16,490 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 92,616 94,951 94,239 94,532 293 0.3%

MetropolitanPolice

Department(FA)

LocalFunds 437,494 407,416 433,295 432,561 (734) 0.2%

SpecialPurpose 21,021 31,861 9,452 9,452 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 5,539 5,529 5,683 5,683 0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 124 20 0 0 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 40,881 23,827 21,280 21,280 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 505,059 468,652 469,710 468,976 (734) 0.2%

FireandEmergency

MedicalServices(FB)

LocalFunds 193,326 195,095 195,387 193,902 (1,485) 0.8%

SpecialPurpose 1,504 1,520 1,520 1,520 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 1,982 0 0 0 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 2,721 0 0 0 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 199,533 196,615 196,907 195,422 (1,485) 0.8%

PoliceOfficers'andFire

Fighters'Retirement

System(FD)

LocalFunds 132,300 127,200 116,700 116,700 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 132,200 127,200 116,700 116,700 0 0.0%

Departmentof

Corrections(FL)

LocalFunds 124,778 108,534 116,056 115,556 (500) 0.4%

SpecialPurpose 25,801 25,541 20,035 20,035 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 187 265 359 359 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 1,008 139 337 337 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 151,775 134,478 136,787 136,287 (500) 0.4%

DistrictofColumbia

NationalGuard(FK)

LocalFunds 3,317 2,278 2,270 2,270 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 2,617 5,929 5,523 5,995 472 8.5%

GrossFunds 5,935 8,207 7,793 8,265 472 6.1%

HomelandSecurityand

EmergencyManagement

Agency(BN)

LocalFunds 3,561 1,932 1,829 1,829 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 91,831 196,913 135,619 135,619 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 235 0 0 0 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 95,627 198,845 137,448 137,448 0 0.0%

CommissiononJudicial

DisabilitiesandTenure

(DQ)

Agency Budget Table - 1


7/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

LocalFunds 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 263 295 295 295 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 263 295 295 295 0 0.0%

JudicialNomination

Commission(DV)

LocalFunds 0 0 0 0 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 146 205 205 205 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 146 205 205 205 0 0.0%

OfficeofPolice

Complaints(FH)

LocalFunds 2,587 2,058 1,859 2,052 193 10.4%

GrossFunds 2,587 2,058 1,859 2,052 193 10.4%

SentencingandCriminal

CodeRevision

Commission(FZ)

LocalFunds 794 768 768 866 98 12.8%

GrossFunds 794 768 768 866 98 12.8%OfficeoftheChiefMedical

Examiner(FX)

LocalFunds 8,074 7,113 7,444 7,659 215 2.9%

SpecialPurpose 251 266 0 0 0 0.0%


GrossFunds 8,407 7,378 7,444 7,659 215 2.9%

OfficeofAdministrative

Hearings(FS)

LocalFunds 7,003 6,920 6,846 7,765 919 13.4%

SpecialPurpose 0 8 0 0 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 1,045 1,119 1,100 1,100 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 8,048 8,047 7,946 8,865 919 11.6%

CriminalJustice

CoordinatingCouncil(FJ)

LocalFunds 298 195 195 195 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 1,383 1,800 1,800 1,800 0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 38 0 0 0 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 721 0 110 110 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 2,440 1,995 2,105 2,105 0 0.0%

ForensicLaboratory

TechnicianTraining

Program(FV)

LocalFunds 1,293 1,601 1,601 1,551 (50) 3.1%

GrossFunds 1,293 1,601 1,601 1,551 (50) 3.1%

OfficeofUnified

Communications(UC)

LocalFunds 31,003 26,686 26,686 26,536 (150) 0.6%

SpecialPurpose 15,777 18,872 12,028 12,028 0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 0 0 1,280 1,280 0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 962 246 246 246 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 47,742 45,804 40,240 40,090 (150) 0.4%

DeputyMayorforPublic

SafetyandJustice(FQ)



8/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

LocalFunds 0 375 464 564 100 21.6%

GrossFunds 0 375 464 564 100 21.6%

LocalFunds 0 2,951 2,951 3,051 100 3.4%

GrossFunds 0 2,951 2,951 3,051 100 3.4%

LocalFunds 3,065 2,377 2,378 3,686 1,308 55.0%

SpecialPurpose 1,602 7,131 1,000 1,000 0 0.0%

FederalFunds 3,681 3,236 2,555 2,555 0 0.0%


GrossFunds 8,456 13,635 5,933 7,241 1,308 22.0%

LocalFunds 395 70 66 187 121 183.3%

FederalFunds 9,988 12,343 7,907 7,907 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 10,383 12,413 7,973 8,094 121 1.5%

LocalFunds 0 130 130 130 0 0.0%

GrossFunds 0 130 130 130 0 0.0%

LocalFunds 0 0 250 350 100 40.0%

GrossFunds 0 250 250 350 100 40.0%

CommitteeRevenue

Actions(+=Revenue

Increase; =Revenue

Decrease)

LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds

InterCommitteeFunding

Transfers(+=Transfersin;

=Transfersout)

LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose

FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds

NETCOMMITTEE

LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose

AccesstoJustice (AJ)

AgencyManagement:

OfficeofVictimServices (FE)

OfficeofJusticeGrantsAdministration (FO)

CorrectionsInformationCouncil(FI)

MotorVehicleTheftPreventionCommission (FW)



9/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds



10/132


v

F I S CAL YEAR20 1 2 AGENCY FULL T IME EQU IVA L ENT T ABLE

(byall

funding

sources)


11/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

OfficeoftheAttorney

General(CB)

LocalFunds 441.6 420.3 450.1 453.1 3.0 0.7%

SpecialPurpose 32.0 43.5 0.4 0.4 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 151.0 135.3 132.0 132.0 0.0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 111.5 140.1 140.2 140.2 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 736.2 742.1 725.7 728.7 3.0 0.4%

MetropolitanPolice

Department(FA)

LocalFunds 4,737.3 4,781.7 4,538.2 4,538.2 0.0 0.0%

SpecialPurpose 5.7 24.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 55.0 59.5 59.5 59.5 0.0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 2.8 1.8 4.2 4.2 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 4,800.7 4,867.0 4,605.0 4,605.0 0.0 0.0%

FireandEmergency

MedicalServices(FB)

LocalFunds 2,201.5 2,207.0 2,128.0 2,128.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 2,201.5 2,207.0 2,128.0 2,128.0 0.0 0.0%

PoliceOfficers'andFire

Fighters'Retirement

System(FD)

LocalFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

Departmentof

Corrections(FL)

LocalFunds 851.2 869.4 867.6 867.6 0.0 0.0%

SpecialPurpose (13.9) 19.6 20.0 20.0 0.00.0%

FederalFunds 0.0 3.2 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 0.0 1.8 1.4 1.4 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 837.4 894.0 894.0 894.0 0.0 0.0%

DistrictofColumbia

NationalGuard(FK)

LocalFunds 24.4 27.4 27.5 27.5 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 40.7 39.6 40.8 40.8 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 65.1 67.0 68.2 68.2 0.0 0.0%

HomelandSecurityand

EmergencyManagement

Agency(BN)

LocalFunds 22.5 18.0 16.5 16.5 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 26.4 35.0 39.5 39.5 0.0 0.0% GrossFunds 48.8 53.0 56.0 56.0 0.0 0.0%

CommissiononJudicial

DisabilitiesandTenure

(DQ)

LocalFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0%

Agency FTE Table - 1


12/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

JudicialNomination

Commission(DV)

LocalFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0% GrossFunds 1.5 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 0.0%

OfficeofPolice

Complaints(FH)

LocalFunds 23.2 23.2 21.2 23.2 2.0 9.4%

GrossFunds 23.2 23.2 21.2 23.2 2.0 9.4%

SentencingandCriminal

CodeRevision

Commission(FZ)

LocalFunds 6.4 8.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 33.3%

GrossFunds 6.4 8.0 6.0 8.0 2.0 33.3%

OfficeoftheChiefMedical

Examiner(FX)

LocalFunds 70.4 68.0 68.0 68.0 0.0 0.0%

SpecialPurpose 1.8 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 72.2 70.0 68.0 68.0 0.0 0.0%

OfficeofAdministrative

Hearings(FS)

LocalFunds 55.0 56.8 56.6 66.6 10.0 17.7%

SpecialPurpose 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 8.3 8.0 8.0 8.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 63.3 65.1 64.6 74.6 10.0 15.5%

CriminalJustice

CoordinatingCouncil(FJ)

LocalFunds 1.7 1.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 11.0 12.5 12.7 12.7 0.0 0.0% IntraDistrict 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 12.7 14.0 15.0 15.0 0.0 0.0%

ForensicLaboratory

TechnicianTraining

Program(FV)

LocalFunds 14.9 17.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 14.9 17.0 17.0 17.0 0.0 0.0%

OfficeofUnified

Communications(UC)

LocalFunds 358.0 343.0 343.0 343.0 0.0 0.0%

PrivateFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 #DIV/0!

Intra

District

0.6

2.0

2.0

2.0

0.0 0.0% GrossFunds 358.6 345.0 345.0 345.0 0.0 0.0%

DeputyMayorforPublic

SafetyandJustice(FQ)

LocalFunds 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0%

IntraDistrict 0.0 0.0 0.0 2.0 2.0 NA

GrossFunds 0.0 3.0 3.0 5.0 2.0 66.7%

AgencyManagement:

AccesstoJustice (AJ)



13/132



Summary Tables

May 11, 2011

AGENCYFY2010

Actual

FY2011

Approved

FY2012

Mayor

FY2012

Committee

Committee

Change

Percent

Change

LocalFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA

GrossFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA

LocalFunds 2.0 1.0 4.7 4.7 0.0 0.0% SpecialPurpose 2.4 2.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 NA

FederalFunds 1.3 2.5 1.3 1.3 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 5.7 6.0 6.0 6.0 0.0 0.0%

LocalFunds 1.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.0 0.0%

FederalFunds 3.0 5.3 6.2 6.2 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 4.9 6.0 7.0 7.0 0.0 0.0%

LocalFunds 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0%

GrossFunds 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 0.0%

LocalFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 NA GrossFunds 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 NA

CommitteeRevenue

Actions(+=Revenue

Increase; =Revenue

Decrease)

LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose

FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds

InterCommitteeFunding

Transfers(+=Transfersin;

=Transfersout)

LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose

FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds

NETCOMMITTEE LocalFunds

DedicatedTaxes

SpecialPurpose

FederalFunds

PrivateFunds

IntraDistrict

GrossFunds

OfficeofVictimServices (FE)

OfficeofJusticeGrantsAdministration (FO)

CorrectionsInformationCouncil(FI)

MotorVehicleTheftPreventionCommission (FW)



14/132


vi

F I S CA L YEAR20 1 2 AGENCY C AP ITAL BUDGET SUMMARY T ABLE


15/132


vii

COMMITTE E TRANS F ER S

The following is a summary of transfers into and out of the Committee as part of itsrecommendation for the Fiscal Year 2012 budget.

Description Funding

IntraDistrict:TheCommitteeacceptsthetransferoffundingfromthe

CommitteeonPublicWorksandTransportationinordertofundBaitBike,a

bicycletheftdeterrenceprogram.

$50,000

LocalFunds:TheCommitteerecognizesincreasedrevenuerelatedtotheper

diemreimbursementfromUSBureauofPrisonsthatisbeingrenegotiated

andincreased. TheDistrictiscurrentlyseekinga$127rate,whichwould

increaserevenuesby$3.9million. BOPhasoffereda$108rate,whichwould

increaserevenueby$262,051.

$262,051

FederalFunds:TheCommitteerecognizesincreasedrevenueassociatedwith

theOfficeofAdministrativeHearingsprojectedMedicaidreimbursable

income(notincludedintheMayorsproposal)$127,609


16/132

Committee on the Judiciary Committee SummaryFiscal Year 2012 Budget Report May 11, 2011

viii

SS UUMMMMAARRYYOOFF CCOOMMMMII TT TT EE EE BBUUDDGGEE TT RREE CCOOMMMMEENNDDAATT II OONNSS

The following is a summary of changes and recommendations made by the Committee tothe Fiscal Year 2012 budget as proposed by the Mayor for each agency under the Committees purview. This summary lists changes to the operating budget and capital budget, as well aspolicy recommendations, and suggested performance recommendations, relevant to each agency.

O f f i c e o f t h e A t t o r n e y G e n e r a l ( C B )

OperatingBudgetRecommendations:

Increase of $230,000 local funds (PS) to Object Class 11 an increase of 3.0 FTEs (1juvenileprosecutorand2civillitigators)

Increaseof$46,000localfunds(PS)toObjectClass14(FringeBenefits CurrentPersonnel)perabove

Reductionof$25,000localfunds(PS)toincreasesalarylapse(attritionrate) Increaseof$48,000localfunds(NPS)toObjectClass20(SuppliesandMaterials)

Me t r o p o l i t a n P o l i c e D e p a r tm e n t ( F A )


Reductionof$213,000localfunds(PS)toincreasesalarylapse/vacancysavings Reductionof$250,000localfunds(PS)inObjectClass15(OvertimePay) Reductionof$134,000localfunds(NPS)inObjectClass20(SuppliesandMaterials) Reductionof$46,000localfunds(NPS)inObjectClass41(ContractualServicesOther) Reductionof$141,000localfunds(NPS)inObjectClass40(OtherServicesandCharges) Increaseof$50,000intraDistrictfundsfromCPWTforBaitBikeprogram Recommends the Council fund $10,868,735 and 180 FTEs to achieve 3,900 sworn officers (this

will achieve a sworn staffing level of 3,914 on September 30, 2012). The Mayor must hire an

additional60FTEsinFY2011forthistohappen.

CapitalBudgetRecommendations:

RecommendnochangetoMayorsFY2012 FY2017CapitalBudgetAuthorityproposalPolicyRecommendations:

OCFOstatesMPDcanabsorb$2.512millioninFY2012iftheCouncildoesnotaddofficers;thus,recommendationthattheCouncilfund$10.869millionincludesfundingforthis$2.512million.

MPDshouldreducesettlementsandjudgmentsandbettermanagerisk.


17/132


ix

MPDshouldreducenumberofswornofficersdoingworkthatcivilianscando DirectCFOtoprepareacivilianizationanalysis

F i r e & Em e r g e n c y Me d i c a l S e r v i c e s ( F B )


Reductionof$485,000localfunds(PS)toincreasesalarylapse/vacancysavings Reductionof$1,000,000localfunds(PS)inObjectClass15(OvertimePay)CapitalBudgetRecommendations:


RecommendcontinuationofBSArestrictiononovertimepayforfiscalyear2012 RecommendExecutivelookatreducingoneshiftandgoingto12hourshift Concernedaboutlookingliabilityforovertimelitigation

P o l i c e O f f i c e r s & F i r e F i g h t e r s R e t i r e m e n t S y s t em ( F D )


TheCommitteerecommendsadoptionofthefiscalyear2012budgetasproposedbytheMayor.

D e p a r tm e n t o f C o r r e c t i o n s ( F L )


Reductionof$500,000localfunds(NPS)inObjectClass41(ContractualServicesOther). Recognize revenue of $262,051 local funds related to the US BOP per diem reimbursement;

Reductionof$262,051localfundsassociatedwiththeabove(zeroneteffectonagencybudget)

CapitalBudgetRecommendations:


RecommendcontinueduseofcurrentcontractorforDOChealthcareservices RecommendExecutivereevaluateits[defenseagainstpendingemployeeappeals Recommendaggressiveeffortstoreducejailpopulation


18/132


x

D CN a t i o n a l G u a r d ( F K )

Operating

Budget

Recommendations:

Increase of $471,629 (Federal Grant Funds) for Youth ChalleNGe (technical adjustment perOCFO)

Home l a n d S e c u r i t y & Em e r g e n c y Man a g eme n t A g e n c y ( F O )


RecommendnochangetoMayorsFY2012budgetproposal

C omm i s s i o n o n J u d i c i a l D i s a b i l i t i e s & T e n u r e ( D Q )


TheCommitteerecommendsadoptionofthefiscalyear2012budgetasproposedbytheMayor.PolicyRecommendations:

The Committee recommends returning the CJDT to a locally funded agency in future budgetcycles.

J u d i c i a l N om i n a t i o n C omm i s s i o n ( D V )


TheCommitteerecommendsadoptionofthefiscalyear2012budgetasproposedbytheMayor.PolicyRecommendations:

The Committee recommends returning the JNC to a locally funded agency in future budgetcycles.

O f f i c e o f P o l i c e C omp l a i n t s ( F H )


Increase of $39,000 local funds (PS) and increase 1.0 FTE to support interns and parttimemonitors

Increase of $63,000 local funds (PS) and an increase of 1.0 FTE to restore an investigatorposition.


19/132


xi

Increaseof$17,000localfunds(NPS)forITservices. Increase of $74,000 local funds (NPS) to restore arbitration, mediation, and translation

contracts.

D C S e n t e n c i n g & C r i m i n a l C o d e R e v i s i o n C omm i s s i o n ( F Z )


Increaseof$78,000andincrease1.0FTE Increase1.0FTE(positionisvacantbutfunded) Increaseof$10,000(NPS)inObjectClass40(OtherServicesandCharges)tocoverITcosts Increase of $10,000 (NPS) in Object Class 70 (Equipment and Equipment Rental) to cover

equipment

PolicyRecommendations:

Committee recommends additional funding for FY 2013 in order to complete criminal coderevisionproject[Recommendation]

O f f i c e o f t h e C h i e f Me d i c a l E x am i n e r ( F X )


Increase of $35,000 local funds (NPS) in Object Class 41 (Contractual Services Other) to fullyfundtheWendtCentercontract

Increaseof$90,000localfunds(NPS)inObjectClass20(SuppliesandMaterials) Increaseof$90,000intradistrictfunds(NPS)fromtheJusticeGrantsAdministrationPolicyRecommendations:

OCMEshouldcontinuetoprogresstowardaccreditationbyeliminatingdeficiencies

O f f i c e o f A dm i n i s t r a t i v e H e a r i n g s ( F S )


Increase of $425,000 (PS) to Object Class 11 (Regular Pay Cont Full Time) and an increase of10.0FTEs.

Increase of $81,000 local funds (PS) to Object Class 14 (Fringe Benefits Curr Personnel) forfringeassociatedwiththe10additionalFTEsabove.

Increase of $67,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 20 (Supplies and Materials) to restorefundingtotheFY2011level.


20/132


xii

Increaseof$158,000localfunds(NPS)toObjectClass40(OtherServicesandCharges)torestorefundingtotheFY2011level.

Increase

of

$188,000

local

funds

(NPS)

to

Object

Class

41

(Contractual

Services

Other)

to

partiallyrestorefundingtotheFY2011level.


CommitteerecommendscontinuingtohardwireintraDistrictfromDOESinBRA Committee recommends additional revenues from Medicaid reimbursement for agency go

towardsotherNPSneedsattheagency.

DRESmustenddelaysinmovingOAHtoconsolidatedspace.

C r i m i n a l J u s t i c e C o o r d i n a t i n g C o u n c i l ( F J )


RecommendnochangetoMayorsFY2012budgetproposalPolicyRecommendations:

D.C.CrimePolicyInstituteshouldbehandledbyCJCCandnottheCityAdministratorsOffice

F o r e n s i c L a b o r a t o r y T e c h n i c i a n T r a i n i n g P r o g r am ( F V )


Reductionof$50,000localfunds(PS)toincreasesalarylapse/vacancysavingsPolicyRecommendations:

Addfundstothebudgetandfinancialplan($1,789,371forFY2013and$2,404,732forFY2014)inordertofullyfundBill195,theDepartmentofForensicSciencesEstablishmentActof2011

O f f i c e o fUn i f i e d C ommu n i c a t i o n s ( O U C )


Reductionof$100,000localfunds(PS)toincreasesalarylapse/vacancysavings Reductionof$50,000localfunds(PS)inObjectClass15(OvertimePay)CapitalBudgetRecommendations:



21/132


xiii

Executive must reduce security costs for OUC, which have increased by 67.0 percent since FY2010

OUC

should

not

budget

non

capital

replacement

costs

against

the

E911

fund

OCFOshouldcontrolfringecostsfortheOUC

D e p u t y Ma y o r f o r P u b l i c S a f e t y & J u s t i c e ( F Q )


Increaseof$210,000intraDistrictfundsfromHSEMAandanincreaseof2.0FTEs Increaseof$100,000localfunds(NPS)toObjectClass41(ContractualServicesOther)tofund

analysisofoptimalsizeofMPD

Increase of $100,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 50 (Subsidies and Transfers) for theAccesstoJusticeInitiative(AJ)program.

Increase of $1,308,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 50 (Subsidies and Transfers) for theOfficeofVictimServices(FE)programtorestorefundsforgrants.

Increase of $121,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 50 (Subsidies and Transfers) for theJusticeGrantsAdministration(FO)programtosupportorganizationwhichassistsinmatesatthe

DCJailorCTFandalsorecentlyreleasedinmates.

Increaseof$100,000localfunds(PS)and1.0FTEfortheMotorVehicleTheftCommission(FW)program.


CommitteeurgesinclusionoflanguageinBRAthatstatesfederalseizureofmoneyandassetsgotoOVS

Committee urges adoption of proposed BSA subtitle on the Office of the Deputy Mayor forPublicSafetyandJustice


22/132

Committee on the Judiciary Page 1 of 111Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Report May 11, 2011

AAGG EENNCCYYFF II SS CCAALL YYEEAARR 22 00 11 22 BBUUDDGGEETT RREE CCOOMMMMEENNDDAATT II OONN SS

The Committee notes that the Mayors fiscal year 2012 proposed budget incorporates avacancy savings for the agencies listed below as presented in the following table:

TABLE1A:VacancySavingsforSelectPublicSafetyAgencies;

MayorsFiscalYear2012BudgetProposal

AGENCY AMOUNT PERCENTAGE

OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral 600 1.06percent

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment 27,200 ____

Fire&EmergencyMedicalServices 285 0.02percent

DepartmentofCorrections 1,200 2.5percent

OfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminer 0 0.0percent

OfficeofUnifiedCommunications 0 0.0percent

Source:OfficeoftheChiefFinancialOfficer(dollarsinthousands)

In addition, as a number of agencies under the Committees purview are, for the currentfiscal year, having to absorb increased costs associated with fringe benefits. Testimony at theCommittees budget hearings from a number of agencies noted a rise in costs, in some casesnoting that the previously utilized model for projecting these costs -- based on a three yearaverage -- did not adequately account for the increase in fringe benefit costs. The increases infringe for certain agencies are presented in the following table:


23/132


TABLE1B:FiscalYear2011FringeBenefitCalculationforSelectPublicSafetyAgencies;

BudgetedvActual

AGENCY FY2011

BUDGETEDFY2011

ACTUALFY2012

PROJECTED

OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral 17.96percent 19.98percent 19.98percent

MetropolitanPoliceDepartment 12.56percent 14.86percent 15.98percent

Fire&EmergencyMedicalServices 13.65percent 15.20percent 15.18percent

DepartmentofCorrections 22.64percent 25.8percent

OfficeoftheChiefMedicalExaminer 19.10percent 18.80percent 21.24percent

OfficeofUnifiedCommunications 23.31percent 26.44percent 21.67percent

Source:OfficeoftheChiefFinancialOfficer

These unforeseen costs not only create issues for agencies in the current fiscal year, butalso in the upcoming one. For the majority of agencies in the public safety cluster, the Mayorsproposed budget for fiscal year 2012 maintains the agency at the fiscal year 2011 level. As therevised fringe benefit figures have been made know, the agencies will, again, be forced to absorbthese increased costs with existing funds.

O F F I C E OF THE ATTORNEY G ENERAL CommitteeRecommendationsSeePage[x]

I . AGENCY OVERV I EW The mission of the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) is to enforce the laws of the

District of Columbia and to provide legal services to the District government. OAG is charged

with conducting the Districts legal business. To discharge these duties, OAG is divided into 13operating divisions.4

4The agencys operating divisions are: (1) Solicitor General; (2) Child Support Services; (3) Civil Litigation; (4)Commercial; (5) Family Services; (6) Health and Human Services; (7) Legal Counsel; (8) Public Safety; (9)Personnel, Labor and Employment; (10) Support Services Division; (11) Office of the Attorney General; (12)Agency Management; and (13) Agency Financial Operations.


24/132


OAG represents the District in virtually all civil litigation, prosecutes certain criminaloffenses on the Districts behalf and represents the District in a variety of administrative hearings

and other proceedings. In addition, OAG is responsible for advising the Executive Office of theMayor, the D.C. Council, the D.C. Courts, various Boards, and Commissions; for reviewinglegislation and regulations; and for supervising lawyers working in the general counsel offices of28 agencies. In all, the Attorney General supervises the legal work of about 350 attorneys and anadditional 350 administrative or professional staff.

I I . MAYOR S PROPOS ED BUDGET MayorsProposedFiscalYear2012OperatingBudget:

5

The Mayors Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal for the Office of the Attorney General is$94,239, a decrease of $712, or -0.7 percent, from the current fiscal year. The proposed budgetsupports 725.7 FTEs, a decrease of 16.4 FTEs, or -2.2 percent, from the current fiscal year.

TABLE1A:OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral

TotalOperatingFundsBudgetFY200620012

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Mayor

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

TotalFunds 63,492 79,042 94,270 96,395 92,616 94,951 94,239

FTEs 486.0 618.0 702.3 694.9 736.2 742.1 725.7

Source:BudgetBooks(dollarsinthousands)

Local Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $56,368, an increase of $6,148, or 12.2percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $50,220. This funding supports 450.1 FTEs, anincrease of 29.9 FTEs, or 7.1 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the local funds budget include: shifting $2,457 in personalservices and 19.0 FTEs from special purpose revenue to the local funds budget; shifting $1,338in contracts and other services from special purpose revenue to the local fund budget; a one-time funding for FY 2012 of $1,876 to support 23.5 FTEs; an increase in personal services of$1,038 to adjust salary and fringe schedules to include step increases in FY 2012; and areduction of personal services cost by $2,011 and 33.0 FTEs in multiple programs to alignpersonal services cost with agency operations.

5 The Mayors proposed budget only provided numbers rounded to dollars in thousands therefore all figuresprovided are dollars in thousands. Percent change is based on whole dollars.


25/132


Special Purpose Revenue Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $1,624, a decrease of$6,470, or -79.9 percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $8,093. This funding supports

0.4 FTEs, a decrease of 43.1 FTEs, or -99.1 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the special purposes revenue budget include a decrease of$6,470 and 43.1 FTEs to align budget with expected revenue in FY 2012 and because fundbalance is not available for use; and a shift of $1,338 in Contracts and Other service from special purposes revenue funds to local funds. In all, $1,863 of special purpose revenue funds wererestored as local funds.

Federal Resources: The Mayors proposed budget is $19,613, a decrease of $440, or -2.2percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $20,053. This funding supports 132.0 FTEs, adecrease of 3.3 FTEs, or -2.4 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the federal resources budget include a decrease of $440 and3.3 FTEs in federal grant funds to align budget with expected revenue in FY 2012, and to adjustsalary and fringe schedule to include step increases.

Private Grant Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $144, an increase of $5, or 3.9 percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $139. This funding supports 3.0 FTEs, nochange from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the private grant funds budget includes an increase of $5 tohelp align the budget with estimated revenue.

Intra-District Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $16,490, an increase of $43, or0.3 percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $16,446. This funding supports 140.2 FTEs,an increase of 0.1 FTEs, or 0.1 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the intra-district funds budget include a shift of $350 and 3.0FTEs to align personal services cost with agency operations.

I I I . COMMI TTE E CONCERNS Attorney General Independence: The Committee has been repeatedly compelled over

the past four years to delineate the role of the Attorney General within District government inreports, oversight hearings, etc. The causal actions for this even prompted legislation to clarifythe independence and duties of this position.6 Most recently the Committee has restated theimportance and need for an independent Attorney General in the Committee Report confirming

6See Attorney General for the District of Columbia Clarification and Elected Term Amendment Act (D.C. Law 18-160; D.C. Official Code 1-301.81 et seq.).


26/132


the current Attorney General for the District of Columbia.7 That report stated the Committeesposition that the current Attorney General understands the importance of this issue -- that the

client of the Attorney General is the District of Columbia -- but that the Committee is obligatedto reiterate these concerns in confirming him. So too, is the Committee obligated to recite theconcern (albeit, in abbreviated fashion) here.

What compels the Committee are lingering sensitivities on this issue from nearly threeyears of conflation of the role of the Attorney General and the role of the general counsel to theMayor. As was stated in the above referenced report, the sting from this slight to the office isstill relatively fresh in the minds of the public and this Council.

Nevertheless, the Committee believes Mr. Nathan, recently confirmed to the position, canrestore the damage from the previous injury to the role of Attorney General and restore public

confidence as well. Further, the Committee is confident that the inclusion of this section withinthe Committees fiscal year 2013 budget report will be superfluous, the need for its inclusionhaving been negated. While we will continue to be mindful of the need for independence in thisagency, going forward this should be seen as axiomatic, and, thus, unnecessary to remind theincumbent of the position of Attorney General of his or her role.

Agency Morale: Also discussed in the current Attorney Generals confirmation reportwas the issue of morale within OAG, as well as the District government in general. In contrast tothe comments made in the previous budget report, however, in the short tenure of thisAdministration efforts have been made to remedy soured labor-management relationships andresolve longstanding disputes. Within OAG, the new Attorney General has engaged in an open

dialogue with staff and labor representatives, and has held several meetings to discuss ways toimprove their daily work lives. Attorney General Nathan has stated that he is actively workingtoward resolving legal disputes with labor that have dragged on for years, and shares laborsdesire to have a new collective bargaining agreement.

Leaders of the lawyers union at OAG have testified of their appreciation ofmanagements efforts to resolve pending litigation over the collective bargaining agreement andseveral other matters before the Public Employees Relations Board.8 Indeed, the AttorneyGeneral testified on March 11, 2011 that although he is unwilling to set a timeframe on which tocomplete negotiations, the agency will do its best to accomplish the shared goal of solidifying acollective bargaining agreement. The Committee also notes that the current Attorney Generalhas been more open to discussion, and had actually engaged in dialogue, with labor andemployees in general about the operations of the agency. Testimony, to date, has been positive,as the agency has made work more pleasurable for employees through relatively minor

7See PR 19-42, Attorney General for the District of Columbia Irvin B. Nathan Confirmation Resolution of 2011,Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, 5-7 (May 2, 2011) (see section on Independence in the Discharge of theDistricts Law Business).8See, e.g.,Office of the Attorney General: Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary, 2(May 2, 2011) (written testimony of Robert Debarardinis, Vice President, AFGE Local 1403).


27/132


concessions with regard to work schedules and dress code policies. This is, hopefully, aprecursor to broader collaboration on issues affecting the agency and employee morale.

Likewise, the Committee hopes the positive treatment of employees at OAG can beapplied more broadly to employees throughout the government. This surely extends from the topdown, and the Mayors commitment to more equitable treatment of employees and a more opendialogue has already had a more positive impact on agencies under this Committees purview.The OAGs plays a part in this as well, as the litigation policies and practices of the Office can be respectful of the Districts workforce, or it can exhibit disdain for these individuals. The previous chief legal officer leaned (heavily) toward prolonged litigation tactics rather thanresolve disputes quickly and amicably. The Committee has urged in the past, and continues tourge, that the legal direction of the District must be returned to what is right and just, avoidingendless litigation and endless appeals that focus on winning. This is a more beneficial direction

for the District as a whole, and one the Attorney General can help advance.

Attorney Caseload; Actual v. Preferred: The Committee typically requests a breakdownof preferred and actual caseloads for line attorneys, by division, in advance of OAGs annualperformance oversight hearing. A reason for this continued questioning on the issue is that theactual caseload for line attorneys, in many cases, greatly exceeds the preferred caseload. The preferred caseload is drawn from best practices numbers, developed both internally and inconsultation with other states attorney generals offices. The high caseload seems particularlyproblematic in the public safety cluster, where attorneys are handling caseloads over 100 percentover the preferred number.

The Committee has remained concerned about the caseloads, particularly for publicsafety lawyers. OAG previously maintained several vacancies of line-attorneys, adding to thecaseloads of existing attorneys.

TABLE1B:OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneral;

ActualvPreferredCaseloadforPublicSafetyLineAttorneys

PublicSafetyDivision FY2010ActualCaseload FY2011ActualCaseload PreferredCaseload

Neighborhood&

VictimServices

120130casesper

attorney

120130casesper

attorney60caseperattorney

Criminal

Section

1,900

cases

per

attorney

1,900

cases

per

attorney

600

cases

per

attorney

JuvenileSection 250casesperattorney 250casesperattorney75100casesper

attorney

Source:OfficeoftheAttorneyGeneralfortheDistrictofColumbia9

9 Letter from Peter Nickles, Attorney General for the District of Columbia, to Phil Mendelson, Chairman,Committee on Public Safety and the Judiciary, Re: OAG Responses for Oversight Hearing March 19, 2010, 34(Mar. 17, 2010) (for fiscal year 2010 data); and Letter from Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of


28/132


As shown in the above table, there has not been a reduction on the burden for public

safety line attorneys. At the May 2, 2011 budget hearing for the agency, the Attorney Generalgave a bleak prospect for the upcoming fiscal year in saying the caseload is being addressed inthat there are no additional cuts.10 The Committee restored funding for two of these positions forthe current fiscal year help alleviate the strain on this Division. However, it is unclear if theagency has filled these positions or if any other efforts have been made to divert resources fromother, perhaps less stressed, divisions to reduce the burden on public safety. The Committeeurges the OAG to find ways to further aid these attorneys to reduce the actual caseload they arerequired to handle.

Breathalyzer Program: The problem of incorrectly calibrated breathalyzer instrumentsfirst became known, publicly, over a year ago. In February 2010 it was first reported that a

number of Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) Intoxolyzer instruments, used to calculate thealcohol content of a persons breath, were incorrectly calibrated at least since September 2008.The OAG later reported that results from the breath test machines potentially implicated nearly400 convictions for driving while intoxicated (DWI). More recently, the OAG has dropped anumber of drunk-driving cases, with potentially more to follow, because of ongoing issues withthe Districts breathalyzer program.

The Committee first held a hearing on this issue in July 2010, and has since followed upwith a hearing in February 2011 with more to follow. The Committee was told at the 2010hearing that the issue was being resolved; but the problem has not been fixed and eachsubsequent hearing reveals additional issues that were not known and should have been

addressed. For example, Deputy Attorney General Robert Hildum testified at the February 2011hearing that during the period when the breath test machines were potentially inaccurate, therewere only 11 cases where the defendant plead to DWI where the supporting evidence came froman MPD machine. As a result of questioning by the Committee, Mr. Hildum went back andreviewed the cases and found that, to date, at least 31 defendants are similarly implicated. 11

The Committee is particularly concerned that a year later, and the Districts breathalyzer program has not been fixed, and that focus does not seem to be brought to the issue untilquestions are raised in public. Only recently, within the past few months, has progress beenmade in bringing experts in to resolve issues and develop a program which meets industrystandards. This despite more than a year since the problems became public, much less when theybecame known. Other testimony from the agency suggested that the delay was due to fundingissues, and the need to wait on federal grant funding to resolve the issue. This response is

Columbia, to Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary, Re: OAG Responses to Committees Secondand Third Set of Questions for Oversight Hearing, 8 (Mar. 7, 2011) (for fiscal year 2011 data).10Office of the Attorney General: Budget Oversight Hearing Before the Committee on the Judiciary (May 2, 2011)(oral testimony of Irvin B. Nathan, Attorney General for the District of Columbia).11 Letter from Robert Hildum, Deputy Attorney General for the OAG, to Phil Mendelson, Chairman, Committee onthe Judiciary, 2 (Apr. 9, 2011).


29/132


unacceptable. Surely, if funding is the issue, it is imperative and in the best interests of theDistrict that the government identify funding to fix this issue. The ability to get drunk-drivers

off our streets is dependent upon us restoring this program to operation.

Settlements and Judgments: The Committee has raised the issue of settlement authorityunder the previous Administration and, just recently, with the current one. The Committeesupports the re-institution of the management responsibility of settlements within the OAG.Currently the Office of Risk Management (ORM) is responsible for receiving notices of claimsunder D.C. Official Code 12-309, negotiating and settling those claims for un-liquidateddamages to persons or property, and managing the Settlements and Judgments Fund (Fund).Pursuant to a memorandum of understanding, executed on December 5, 2003, ORM agreed tomake timely disbursements and resolve financial matters related to OAGs settlement of pendingmatters (up to $500,000), provide data and information concerning its management of the Fund

to the OAG and other agencies, and provide a timely listing of the claims that OAG hadsubmitted to ORM for payment.

While the previous Attorney General was originally supportive of this position, that vocalsupport was later stifled. The current Attorney General has stated that this is a policy areaidentified for examination, one the OAG plans to review and provide a policy proposal for goingforward.12 The Committee believes this to be a positive step forward, and one that can lead topolicies that better serve the District. At the very least, if the settlement authority were to remainat ORM, senior attorneys within OAG could assist with settlement decisions. This could result,in some cases, with earlier settlements that have a better fiscal outcome for the District. At thevery least, an evaluation of the structure of our settlement process is warranted, and is welcomed

by the Committee.

I V . COMMI TTE E RECOMMENDAT IONS AgencyOperatingBudget:

The Committee notes that the formulation of the Mayors proposed FY 2012 operatingbudget for OAG incorporates a $600,000 salary lapse, or 1.06 percent of budgeted salaries. Thesalary lapse was close to $1.5 million in FY 2011. There are 23 vacancies (local funds), or 57vacancies (gross funds). Ten (10) of these vacancies are being eliminated. Seven (7) can still befilled. The Committee also notes that fringe for OAG is calculated at 19.98 percent for FY 2012(it was calculated at 17.96 percent in FY 2011, less in FY 2010).

The Committee recommends adoption of the fiscal year 2012 operating budget for OAGas proposed by the Mayor with the following modifications:

12 March 7, 2011 Letter from Irvin B. Nathan Attorney General for the District of Columbia, supra note 6, at 25.


30/132


1. An increase of $230,000 local funds (PS) to Object Class 11 (Regular Pay - Cont FullTime) and an increase of 3.0 FTEs: 1 juvenile prosecutor in the Public Safety Division

($70,000), and 2 civil litigators in the Civil Litigation Division ($160,000).

2. An increase of $46,000 local funds (PS) to Object Class 14 (Fringe Benefits - CurrentPersonnel) to fund fringe associated with the 3.0 FTE increase in number 1 above.

3. A reduction of $25,000 local funds (PS) to increase salary lapse (attrition rate) to equal 1percent of PS costs.

4. An increase of $48,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 20 (Supplies and Materials) torestore funding to the FY 2011 level.

5.

A reduction of $6,000 local funds (NPS) to Object Class 31 (Telephone, Telegraph,Telegram, Etc.), to reduce individual Blackberries and cell phones.

6. Technical adjustment per OCFO: Shift $3,000 from Activity 6111 (Alcoholic BeverageRegulatory Counsel) to newly created Activity 5112.

ME TROPOL I TAN POL I CE DE PARTMENT CommitteeRecommendationsSeePage[x]

I . AGENCY OVERV I EW The mission of the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) is to safeguard the District of

Columbia and protect its residents and visitors by providing the highest quality police servicewith integrity, compassion, and a commitment to innovation that integrates people, technologyand progressive business systems.


13

The Mayors Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal for the MPD is $469,710, an increase of$1,058, or 0.2 percent, above the current fiscal year. The proposed budget supports 4,605 FTEs,a decrease of 262 FTEs, or 5.4 percent, from the current fiscal year.



31/132


TABLE2A: MetropolitanPoliceDepartment



Local Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $433,295, an increase of $25,879, or 6.4percent above the FY 2011 approved budget of $407,416. This funding supports 4,538.2 FES, adecrease of 243.5 FTEs, or 5.1 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

Policy decisions include the transfer of 226.0 FTEs from the Professional DevelopmentBureau and Agency Management program to other Bureaus, with a net reduction of $85,591, andthe elimination of 346 unfunded/partially funded FTEs from MPDs FY 2012 budget to moreaccurately represent staffing in the total FTE amount. Additionally, because of a yearly attritiontotal of around 180 separations, MPDs budget includes funding for an additional 120 officers,funded by vacancy savings from the expected separations.

Local funds were decreased by $485,980 due to a transfer of the local portion of the ITassessment to the Office of the Chief Technology Officer (OCTO).

Special Purpose Revenue Funds: The proposed budget is $9,452, a decrease of$22,409, or 70.3 percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $31,861. This funding supports3.0 FTEs, a decrease of 21.0 FTEs, or 87.5 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The reduction is the result of several Special Purpose Revenue funds being shifted tolocal funds, including for data processing, unclaimed property, narcotics proceeds, gamblingproceeds, and automated traffic enforcement.

Federal Resources: The proposed budget is $5,683, an increase of $155, or 2.8 percent,above the FY 2011 approved budget of $5,529. This funding supports 59.5 FTEs, unchangedfrom the FY 2011 approved level.

Private Grant Funds: The proposed budget is $0, a decrease of $20, or 100 percent,below the FY 2011 approved budget of $20. This funding supports 0 FTES, unchanged from theFY 2011 approved level.

This decrease occurred because the departments private grant for a youth summer campwas discontinued for FY 2012.

Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Mayor2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

TotalFunds 467,992 467,418 516,455 522,093 505,059 468,652 469,710

FTEs 4,330.0 4,510.4 4,280.9 4,462.0 4,800.7 4,867.0 4,605.0


32/132


Intra-District Funds: The proposed budget is $21,280, a decrease of $2,547, or 10.7percent, below the FY 2011 approved budget of $23,827. This funding supports 4.2 FTEs, an

increase of 2.4 FTEs, or 136.1 percent from the FY 2011 approved level.

The difference is attributable in part to sub-grant decreases and a reduction in the schoolsecurity services contract.

MayorsProposedFiscalYear2012CapitalBudget:

The Mayors Fiscal Year 2012 capital budget authority proposal for the MetropolitanPolice Department (increases/decreases) the total budget authority for agency projects by $(

) in FY 2012. The Mayors proposal modifies the agencys capital projects as shown in

Table 3-B below.

Table3B:MetropolitanPoliceDepartment

MayorsFY2012FY2017CapitalBudgetAuthorityProposal

Project

No.ProjectDescription

Mayors

Proposed

Budget

ApprovedBudget

FY2011FY2016

VarianceinTotalProject

Authorityfrom

FY2011FY2016

PEQ20 SpecializedVehicles 24,049 24,000 49

PEQ22 SpecializedVehicles 6,000

PL110MPDBuilding

Renovations/Construction18,400 16,000 2,400

TOTALADJUSTMENTS

I I I . COMMI TTE E CONCERNS

Sworn Staffing: A serious, and highly-publicized, concern at the Metropolitan PoliceDepartment is that of the sworn staffing number sharply declining. In 2006, the goal was set to

increase sworn staffing to 4,200 by FY 2009. However, in light of budget cuts beginning in2009 and an overly optimistic estimate of federal funding, that goal has long been set aside byMPD. Sworn staffing peaked in June 2009 at 4,080 members, and there has been a downwardtrend ever since. As of May 1, 2011, the sworn number was at 3,869.


33/132


TABLE2B:MetropolitanPoliceDepartment;

YearEndSwornStaffingNumbersFY2006 2011

FiscalYear SwornStaffing

2006 3800

2007 3910

2008 4051

2009 4032

2010 3961

2011 3869(projected)

Source:MPD(FY2011numbercurrentasofMay1,2011)

There are several factors that make declining sworn staffing an ongoing concern. First isthe attrition rate for sworn officers, which has averaged 14-15 per month since FY 2007. MPDestimates that this rate will continue into FY 2012. Attrition is also being affected as the Policeand Firefighters Retirement Relief Board is reducing its case backlog, which will continue toincrease attrition, as those sworn officers with cases pending before the Board are included in thesworn count. Further, MPD expects the number of those members eligible for retirement to

spike during FY 2012 into FY 2013, as the large numbers of officers hired in the late 1980sreach retirement age.

Attrition would not be playing such a large role, however, if MPD was still hiring newrecruits to offset those leaving the Department. During FY 2011, MPD suspended recruitment,and there are currently zero recruits. At MPDs performance oversight hearing on March 18,2011, Chief of Police Cathy Lanier stated that the Department would have trouble if the swornnumber were to drop below 3800. These concerns make it imperative that MPD have adequatefunding to maintain an appropriate number of sworn officers. The Committee credits the Chiefof Polices professional assertion of an appropriate number of sworn officers for the District, andthe Committee believes that the resulting effect on public safety in the District if the sworn

number were to drop too low is not an option.

The proposed FY 2012 budget for MPD includes funding for 120 new recruits in FY2012. This number is not sufficient in light of the attrition rate. Indeed, without the addition of120 recruits, by the end of Fiscal Year 2011, assuming an attrition rate of 15 separations permonth, the sworn number would reach 3,764. With the additional officers, that number willreach only 3,704 (or, as the OCFO has calculated, 3,707) by the end of FY 2012, taking intoaccount the same attrition rate of 15 separations per month. In light of the Chiefs


34/132


recommendations, the sworn number simply cannot be permitted to reach a level that low. Afterthe Committee received several proposed cost estimates to reach 3,900 sworn officers by the end

of FY 2012, the Chief Financial Officer provided final numbers to the Committee, which detailan additional cost of $14,556,284 for FY 2012. This cost would support 200 recruits in order toreach 3,900 by the end of FY 2012. The Committee recommends staffing at this level, and theCouncil needs to find the additional funding to support that number. Additionally, it must benoted that the concern of an impending spike in retirement makes it imperative that adequatefunding for recruitment is maintained beyond FY 2012, and that MPD properly utilizes itsresources to assure that this effort remains fully funded. The Committee recommends that MPDimplement a plan to address this spike before it occurs, rather than being forced to react after thefact.

Further, MPD has indicated that the Academy portion of a new recruits training is now

around 6 months, which has been reduced from the former time period of around 9 months. TheCommittee appreciates the increased efficiency in the training of new recruits, particularly inlight of the current need for more officers on the street more quickly. However, the Committeewould like to emphasize that MPD should not sacrifice quality for the sake of expediency, andthe Department should assure that all new recruits still are adequately vetted and properlytrained. This is crucial to maintaining a positive reputation for the Districts police departmentand ensuring the safety of District residents.

Civilianization: In addition to the need for additional numbers of sworn officers at theDepartment and the need for the Council to find the required funding for FY 2012, MPD shouldreverse the recent trend regarding officers filling civilian roles when civilian positions have been

eliminated. Thus, civilian numbers have been declining. The Department should increasecivilianization of the force in order to more efficiently utilize sworn officers, and instead hirecivilians to serve in civilian functions. This will not only save money, because civilian positionsare less expensive for the Department because they do not include long-term pension plans, butthis will allow more sworn officers to return to the streets to perform traditional police duties.

Table2C:MetropolitanPoliceDepartmentCivilianStaffingNumbersFY20062011

FiscalYear Date CivilianStaffing

2006 09/26/2006 680

2007 09/27/2007 722

2008 09/27/2008 717

2009 04/26/2009 619

2010 11/29/2009 561

2011 01/09/2011 536

Source:MPD


35/132


The high civilian numbers in FY 2006 through FY 2008 are likely the result of civilianizationinitiatives during FY 2005 FY 2007. However, a policy initiative for MPD for the FY 2011

budget included a postponement of hiring for civilian vacancies. The Committee urges thereversal of that effort and the reinvigoration of the civilianization initiative.

Table2C:MetropolitanPoliceDepartment

FYCivilianizationInitiative NumberofPositions

Civilianized

2005 83

2006 28

2007 63

Source: FY2007BudgetReport,CommitteeonPublicSafetyandtheJudiciary.Numbersarethoseproposedintherespectiveyearsbudget.

Labor and Management Relations: The Metropolitan Police Department has a veryactive union, the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP). However, it has been years since a newcollective bargaining agreement has been negotiated between agency management and labor.Indeed, the current contract ended October 1, 2007, and that contract has remained in operationunder a holdover since that time. In 2007, MPD proposed a contract that was unacceptable to theunion. The Fraternal Order of Police has challenged the contract as being unfair and overlyburdensome, and the contract has been continuously litigated at the Public Employee RelationsBoard (PERB), then the DC Superior Court, and then again at PERB. The FOP believes thatMPD is unwilling to bargain, and the FOP wishes to reach the point of a hearing on the CBA, but

believes that MPD continues to drag out the issue in litigation in order to prevent a hearing fromoccurring. According to the union there is no relationship at all between labor and managementat MPD, and the officers are feeling the brunt of the lack of a current, agreed-upon collective bargaining agreement. The Committee strongly urges the Metropolitan Police Department tofind common ground with the police union and negotiate a new and revised collective bargainingagreement that is mutually acceptable to all parties moving forward.

Enforcement of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety: On February 4, 2011, the Committeeheld a hearing on the Enforcement of Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety. At the hearing andafterward, the Committee received statements from many bicyclists, who all spoke to the sameproblem the mishandling of incident reports by police officers. Witness after witness asserted

that after a bicycle crash, the police officer failed to obtain an injured bicyclists side of the story.Oftentimes, this was because the bicyclist was transported to a hospital, and the officer did notmake the necessary effort to track down the bicyclist after that time. Witness testimony alsoprovided that after a bicyclist loses the opportunity to provide his or her side of the story of anaccident, then he or she is more likely to be precluded from recovery for injuries and propertydamage after the report points to error on the part of the bicyclist. Furthermore, the WashingtonArea Bicyclists Association has brought to the attention of the Committee the level of difficultyexperienced by bicyclists in trying to receive the police reports after an accident. Oftentimes, the


36/132


bicyclist will need the police report in order to justify an injury claim. Police reports are onecomponent of the problem, but witnesses also testified to the fact that there appears to be uneven

enforcement regarding the traffic laws as they relate to bicyclists vis--vis motorists, such thatdisproportionately, the bicyclists receive citations even in incidences where it was not the fault ofthe bicyclist. At the hearing witnesses also testified to instances where a motorist has killed apedestrian, and no charges were filed against the motorist.

Table2C:MetropolitanPoliceDepartmentSelectPedestrian,Bicycle,andTrafficStatistics,CalendarYears2009&2010

2009 2010

Ride bike so as to obstruct traffic 4 7

Ride bike or PMD as to create a traffic hazard 7 32

Bike or PMD fail to yield right of way to pedestrian or vehicle 19 21

Disobey traffic device or officer while on bike 56 175Bike or PMD fail to yield right of way to pedestrian or vehicle on sidewalk 2 9

Riding bike or PMD on sidewalk in CBD 19 30

Bike improper equipment 9 16

Bike violation sounding warning device 3 5

Operating PMD with ears covered 3 5

Total 122 300

Stop, stand, or park in bike lane (issued to vehicle drivers) 180 729

Walking against a red light signal 88 98

Walking as to create a hazard 134 242

Leaving curb in an unsafe manner 18 32

Crossing an intersection diagonally 11 21

Walking in a roadway where a sidewalk is provided 33 60

Total 284 541

Fail to yield pedestrian at a non-signalized site 15 211

Passing stop sign without coming to a full stop 10,416 11,919

Colliding with a pedestrian 23 22

Fail to yield right of way to a pedestrian 172 534

Fail to yield to a pedestrian on sidewalk 51 51

Total 10,677 12,737

Pedestrian 16 14

Bicyclist 0 2

Total 33 25

Distracted driving violations 11,952 14,570

Reckless Driving Arrests (incidents where this was the top charge) 127 109

Source

:

MPD

A major component of any comprehensive initiative on the part of the MetropolitanPolice Department will include training officers on the proper enforcement of the traffic laws asthey pertain to bicyclists and pedestrians. At the public oversight hearing on the Enforcement ofPedestrian and Bicycle Safety mentioned above, Assistant Chief Patrick Burke stated that morethan 600 officers had received training on pedestrian and bicycle safety and enforcement, andthat MPD was working with DDOT to create an online training module on pedestrian and

BicycleandPersonalMobility

DeviceViolations

Pedestrian

Violations

Pedestrian-

SafetyVehicle

Violations

Fatal-

ities


37/132


bicycle safety that would eventually be required for all officers. In MPDs response toCommittee questions in advance of its performance oversight hearing on March 18, 2011, MPD

stated that the training already provided to the 600 officers is being used to create the on-linetraining module that will be provided to the remaining members of the department. Theexpected completion date for this was April 2011, and all members would be required tocomplete the training.

The Committee also formally requested on March 9, 2011 that the Office of PoliceComplaints evaluate MPDs policies and practices surrounding traffic accidents involving bicyclists, and make recommendations for MPD management to improve the way that theseaccidents are handled moving forward. In light of the repeated and apparently systemic issuessurrounding enforcement in the context of a pedestrian or bicycle accident, the Committeestrongly urges MPD to implement the training module it is already working on and ensure that

every member is required to, and does, participate in the training. Furthermore, MPD should bereceptive to the bicyclist communitys suggestions on how to conduct the training or whatsubject matter to include, considering entities such as the Washington Area BicyclistsAssociation already conduct trainings for outside entities. Furthermore, those in the bicyclistcommunity are likely those most affected by these systemic problems with enforcement, andtherefore may have the best perspective on how to remedy them.

I V . COMMI TTE E RECOMMENDAT IONS The Committee notes that the formulation of the Mayors proposed FY 2012 operating

budget for FEMS incorporates a $27.8 million salary lapse, or [ ] percent of budgetedsalaries. The agency budgeted $30 million in FY 2011. The Committee notes that the MayorsMay 9, 2011 errata letter proposes the transfer of MPD facility maintenance and propertymanagement to the new Department of General Service (DGS). The proposal is to have DGSabsorb this cost while allowing MPD to free up $1.239 million for 20 recruits. The Committeealso notes that fringe for MPD is calculated at 15.98 percent for FY 2012 (it was calculated at14.86 for FY 2011; FEMS is calculated at 15.2 percent).

The Committee recommends adoption of the fiscal year 2012 operating budget for MPDas proposed by the Mayor with the following modifications:

1. A reduction of $213,000 local funds (PS) to increase salary lapse/vacancy savings to $28million (equal to a [ ] percent rate). The agency budgeted $30 million, or [ ] percent, inFY 2011.

2. A reduction of $250,000 local funds (PS) in Object Class 15 (Overtime Pay). The grossovertime budget for the agency will still exceed the overtime budget for FY 2011 by $6million.


38/132


3. A reduction of $134,000 local funds (NPS) in Object Class 20 (Supplies and Materials).This funds the agency at the FY 2011 level.

4. A reduction of $46,000 local funds (NPS) in Object Class 41 (Contractual Services-Other). This represents a reduction of 0.1 percent from the proposed FY 2012 fundinglevel.

5. A reduction of $141,000 local funds (NPS) in Object Class 40 (Other Services andCharges). This represents a reduction of 1.0 percent from the proposed FY 2012 fundinglevel.

6. An increase of $50,000 intra-District funds ($40,000 NPS, $10,000 PS). The Committeeaccepts the transfer of this funding from the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation in order to fund Bait Bike, a bicycle theft deterrence program.

7. The Committee recommends the Council fund $10,868,735 and 180 FTEs to achieve3,900 sworn officers (this will achieve a sworn staffing level of 3,914 on September 30,2012).14 The Mayor must hire an additional 60 FTEs in FY 2011 for this to happen.15

AgencyCapitalBudget:The Committee recommends adoption of the Mayors FY 2012 - FY 2017 Capital Budget

Authority proposal for MPD without modification.


The Committee makes the following policy recommendations with regard to MPD:

1. The OCFO has stated that MPD can absorb $2.512 million in FY 2012 if the Councildoes not add officers to the Mayors proposed FY 2012 budget. The recommendationthat the Council fund $10.869 million includes funding for this $2.512 million.

14 The $10,868,735 additional funding is needed in FY 2012 to maintain the force at the current size of 3,869 and toexceed 3,900 beginning in September 2012. This funding includes: $3,390,000 cost in FY 2012 of hiring 60 recruitsin FY 2011; $4,520,000 (PS) for 120 recruits in addition to those proposed by the Mayor, hired in classes of 30, onthe 1st of November, January, March, and May; $446,400 (NPS) for the additional 120 recruits in addition to thoseproposed by the Mayor; and $2,512,335 for retention incentives unfunded in the Mayors proposed budget.15 Assumptions include: A salary of $56,500 for each recruit, including fringe; a cost of $141,250 per month for aclass of 30; a cost of $3,720 (NPS) per recruit as a one-time expenditure; all hiring occurs on the 1st of the month;and there is no salary lapse.


39/132


2. Object Class 40 (Other Services and Charges) includes $315,000 for settlements andjudgments. MPD should reduce this number and better manage risk.

3. MPD ought to reduce the number of sworn officers doing work that civilians can do (e.g.,firearms and took mark examination, research and analytical services, corporate supportbureau, agency management program, etc.). If MPD increased civilians by 200, freeing200 officers, the District would increase police presence without increasing the size of theforce (and long term pension costs).

4. The Committee directs the CFO to prepare a civilianization analysis, in consultation withthe Chief, no later than January 1, 2012 that includes, but is not limited to: analysis byBudget Division/Activity of FTEs that are sworn/civilian, historically have beensworn/civilian at any time since 2000, and that could be civilianized.

F I R E & EMERGENCY MED I CA L SERV I C E S CommitteeRecommendationsSeePage[x]

I . AGENCY OVERV I EW The mission of the Fire and Emergency Medical Services Department (FEMS) is to

promote safety and health through excellent pre-hospital medical care, fire suppression,hazardous materials response, technical rescue, homeland security preparedness and fireprevention and education in the District of Columbia.

The FEMS Department provides fire suppression, emergency medical services (EMS),homeland security and special operations response -- collectively known as all-hazards protection -- for residents and visitors to the District of Columbia from 33 neighborhood firestations that deploy 39 EMS transport units (ambulances), 33 engine companies, 16 laddertrucks, three heavy-rescue squads, one hazardous materials unit, and one fire boat company.Fourteen of these transport units and 20 of these engine companies are staffed by paramedics providing advanced life support (ALS) care. The department responds to more than 150,000

emergency 911 calls and transports more than 90,000 patients to local hospitals each year.FEMS also provides services for special events unique to the nations capital, such asdemonstrations, public gatherings and presidential inaugurations. Additionally, the department provides fire suppression and emergency medical protection for presidential motorcades andhelicopter landings.


40/132


Fire and life safety inspection, education, and intervention programs touch more than10,000 District residents each year through community presentations, smoke alarm installations,

health status/disease prevention screenings, car seat installations and CPR instruction.


16

The Mayors Fiscal Year 2012 budget proposal for Fire and Emergency Medical Servicesis $196,907, an increase of $292, or 0.1 percent, from the current fiscal year. The proposedbudget supports 2,128.0 FTEs, a decrease of 79.0 FTEs, or -3.6 percent, from the current fiscalyear.

TABLE3A:FireandEmergencyMedicalServices


Actual Actual Actual Actual Actual Budget Mayor

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

TotalFunds 160,911 174,790 192,379 191,979 199,533 196,615 196,907

FTEs 1,859.0 2,070.0 2,310.6 2,050.0 2,201.5 2,207.0 2,128


Local Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $195,387, an increase of $292, or 0.1percent, from the FY 2011 approved budget of $195,095. This funding supports 2,128.0 FTEs,a decrease of 79.0 FTEs, or -3.6 percent, from the FY 2011 approved level.

The policy initiatives within the local funds budget include: the elimination of twoAssistant Fire Chief positions, four Deputy Fire Chief positions, and six Battalion Chiefpositions, creating savings of approximately $2,400; the elimination of an additional 65 vacantpositions in the Agency Management, Fire Prevention and Education, Operations Support, andField Operation programs, creating savings of approximately $2,700; a reduction to thenonpersonal services budget of $882 for contractual services, supplies, and equipment; and adecrease of $208 to the budget due to the transfer of the local portion of the IT assessment to theOffice of the Chief Technology Officer.



41/132


Special Purpose Revenue Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $1,520, the samelevel of funding as the FY 2011 approved budget. This funding supports 0.0 FTEs, the same as

the FY 2011 approved level.

Federal Resources: The Mayors proposed budget is $0, no change from the FY 2011approved budget. This funding supports 0.0 FTEs, the same as the FY 2011 approved level.

Intra-District Funds: The Mayors proposed budget is $0, no change from the FY 2011approved budget. This funding supports 0.0 FTEs, the same as the FY 2011 approved level.

MayorsProposedFiscalYear2012CapitalBudget:

The Mayors fiscal year 2012 capital budget authority proposal for the Fire andEmergency Medical Services Department (increases/decreases) the total budget authority foragency projects by $( ) in FY 2012. The Mayors proposal modifies the agencys capitalprojects as shown in Table 3-B below.

Table3B:FireandEmergencyMedicalServices

MayorsFY2012FY2017CapitalBudgetAuthorityProposal

Project

No.ProjectDescription

Mayors

ProposedBudget

ApprovedBudget

FY2011FY2016

VarianceinTotalProject

Authorityfrom

FY2011FY2016

20630

Fire

Apparatus

32,384

40,480

(8,096)

LC437E22Firehouse

Replacement4,700 5,100 (400)

LD839 EVOCCourse 2,250

LE537Engine14Major

Renovation3,800

LE737Engine27Major

Renovation1,000 1,534 (534)

LF239ScheduledCapital

Maintenance22,000 16,250 5,750

LG337 FireTrainingSimulators 1,650 1,920 (270)

LG537TrainingAcademySite

Improvements11,940 12,190 (250)

TOTALADJUSTMENTS


42/132


I I I . COMMI TTE E CONCERNS Medical Director: The Committee has voiced the need for str

revised coj fy 2012 budget recommendations report

Documents