chair chu: the civil service plan, you have mentioned a number of problems with the implementation of it and some of the unknown costs at the time. what was about to of the savings that you were anticipating from the civil service plan? >> let me see. i might have something that shows it. in the year we were going to do this, six months of the work order of the sheriff would have been $4.30 million, and six months of the civil service costs would have been $3.10 million, so that is a difference of $1.20 million. that is a $1.20 million differential for a six-month period. that would be a total savings for a full-year period of $2.40 million. the civil service dollars are understated, and as a consequence, that savings would really be far less in reality. chair chu: so you get

anticipated for the full year savings about $2.40 million in savings? >> that is right. chair chu: but the recruiting and training would have eaten up at $2.40 million? >> what would have happened is first off, it would have taken us longer, so we would have had a longer time with the work order, number one, and the background check situation alone works out to be about $10,000 per hire, and the reason is you do three background checks on three individuals at $3,000 each, and the experience at the sheriff's department has been that one out of three passes the background check, so you are spending $3,000 times three to identify one hire for a security person, so that is certainly a portion of it. we have detailed accounting on

all of the background training costs as well as the hourly rates as well as the backfill expense, and we can provide all of that detail to you and are happy to do that. chair chu: i think that would be helpful, because the way i see this, since this was a plan that was part of the budget, there are only several ways that we can go about this. one is to continue with the civil service plan, where you say the savings will not be realized by the department, so you would have to find a way with that. the second option is to reverse it and go back to the way that it was, and that means you would have to pay the $4 million to pay the sheriff's department for the work order, and in the third is that you go forward with this option, the prop j option, which is a difficult one, but it would result in savings. >> this si -- is the first year

that we have looked at this. chair chu: so for the options that we have laid out, if we reverse it or continue on with the civil service plan, we would have to make up for that somehow. and then in regards to -- i think you alluded to in a bit, but we really did not speak too much about it. -- i think you alluded to it a bit. that money would be taken from our general fund reserve. can you tell me what this means to return, i guess, the deputies from sfgh and laguna

honda? >> we are looking at that carefully. the critical issue for answering that question is what we end up believing to be the impact of the state realignment program. so there is a current your supplemental -- a current year's supplemental for staffing costs at the jails, but we will also have to increase staffing at some point in the budget at the jails. right now, we have a budget that assumes that the little jail stays closed. we're going to receive a significant increase in the jail population as people are sentenced to local jail rather than state prison. we will likely need to expand staff at the jails, or expand ours at the jail -- hours at the

jail, and the first is to use overtime, and the second is to have more positions. a third option would be to move the deputies who are currently staffing the health department back to the jails. they could provide some of that staffing which would be needed for the new, higher jail population, and that would offset the hiring or overtime to offset that. there would likely be assuming that the realignment process goes through. chair chu: we do not know the details yet, but we believe that there will be increased costs. either way, we are looking --

you can either do that with overtime or hire new people, and this would be potentially neither one of those. this would fill the need for staffing. >> that is correct. chair chu: and then, just a question for dph, on like the other proposal, where they laid out where the cuts would occur, what is the plan here? is it going to be a targeted approach to rid the cuts are made? or is it a percentage, across the board -- is it going to be a targeted approach to where the cuts are made? >> , chief non matched general fund we have, and it will be a 15% -- it would be how much non- matched general fund we have.

we would work with each of those organizations in determining how they would want to realize those. chair chu: do you think you will be able to share some of those details with us? >> sure can. we're happy to share those with you. chair chu: ok, if there are no further -- oh, supervisor wiener? supervisor wiener: i have a question about the security and the contract out. i know this is an annual political event. significant cost savings. the effectiveness of these, i

would ask you to comment on that. i know that at sf general, there are security needs, and i know that from various positions and others who have commented to me, again, not in the context of any union situation, but just as individual employees that they do have concerns about that. >> first, alan lee county help center, highland hospital, et -- alan lee county note -- alameda county health center, highland hospital, and another have been

happy with epic. -- it. i really believe that they have, number one, the experience, and i do believe they set a very high standard. the people who work need to have certifications to work in the health-care setting. and to provide security in that setting. that is my first point. the second point, and i think this is important, is before we went to the sheriff, before we went to the sheriff work order, we had a 100% security staff organization that we supervised ourselves. it was not sheriff's deputies. but it was a salaried security force supplemented by assistance from the police department when somebody needed to be arrested and transported to a jail or

managed from a police standpoint. that is exactly the arrangement we would have under this situation. we would have a group -- we would have a security force that is not the sheriff's deputies. this goes back. they were not shares dipodies before, but they would have certification. a contract to work force also of police officers or sheriff's deputies. we would have an arrangement with the sheriff's department to provide with transport and booking note -- and booking, that would be a component of what we have to make available, and i think at the end of the day, the reality is people who are brought to the hospital by police are brought by the police, and they are there when patients are brought in, that is a significant amount of the presence that exists in our emergency departments. it is frequently the police

department's -- the police department as well as sheriff's deputies. the contract workers, the background checks would be at the level of armed guards. whether we may ultimately decision -- the decision that they would be armed or not, they would be passed, qualified, and eligible to carry firearms, so this is a very high level background check and would require a fairly high level of training. supervisor wiener: tell me what the pay rate is. there is a rage, in there is also probably a certain stereotype -- there is a range. >> number one, we are not looking for minimum wage with this plan. when i spoke with the organization, i have only spoken with one organization just to try to gather a little bit of data, but i talked to them

about, how do you deal, for example, with collective bargaining and things of those natures, and their response is they provide services in many states across the country, and there are many states where their forces are not unionized, and there are other localities where there forces are, so if they are supplying forces in new york and boston, in san francisco, that is really a necessity, so they work with what the local needs and requirements of the community are, so, number one, this is not a minimum-wage situation. i think it would be competitive salaries and a full benefit package that we would be looking for. we, obviously, we would do, werfp, -- we would do a full rfp. you know, i am not aware --

believe me, if there was a problem at alameda county with this, and we would be seeing some newspapers. it would not be anecdotal accounts. you cannot have a trauma center like you have at alameda is, or others, and expect that you can get by with something that might look like a bank security guard. that is not what we are looking for. that is not what we would be seeking. et supervisor wiener: -- supervisor wiener: i am sure there are some statistics about incidents where they need a gun or do not need a gun. >> we are struggling a little -- we have information about all of

the incidence of we have had. we have obviously had many incidents at the general where the person is armed, so we have those instances, as well. one would be to make the security position on arms, et -- position unarmed, but if we have two to print standards, we would also wanted to be able to cover, you know, korea we would also want to be able to cover other -- we would also want to be able to cover, you know, others. we are really struggling about whether or not to have one standard, where they carry arms or not. this would be a circumstance to

background cover. that would be helpful. 10 people to respond to this instance piquet they are the only 10 that are armed. -- respond to this instance because they are the only 10 that are armed. we would