those medical crisis situations with patients, because they're in a law-enforcement and they are bound by regulations that control law enforcement officers. how can we handle that differently? well, as medical personnel, we have a duty and obligation to keep our patients safe in those situations. and we have a responsibility -- barbara mentioned at the joint commission. we're mandated to provide a safe environment, especially for our most vulnerable patients who are in those crises and are confused and irrational and causing potential harm to themselves and others. we can -- i mean, the doctors and nurses can constrain people. that is not a great situation. we're not trained to do that. a compromise is our relationship with their patients if we're

physically restraining them. but we can have hospital staff, or staff for part of our medical team, assist us in restraining patients in those situations. that is where we have a gap right now. the sheriff's cannot do that. security guards could. that is what we're trying to address here. i hope that background of separating out the issues helps you to understand the situation. supervisor chu: thank you. president chiu: thank you, and i appreciate that explanation of the first question i had. i think it helps to clarify things one missing party today someone representing the sheriff's department to help us understand why they do not feel that you can help intervene in a very real security situation with your folks. i have a couple questions to the controller's office in the mayor's office. having received proposals, i

have been going back and forth trying to understand how to compare apples to apples. they have proposed what they believe will help to save the budgetary savings that we're looking for here. from the controller's perspective, you say this is apples to oranges. we're talking about a few fte's doing the work. sciu said that was because they did not feel that as many managers were required to manage the situation, and they believe that they could achieve the appropriate level of security without such a high management structure. i am wondering if the mayor's office or the controller's office can respond to that, on whether the staffing level proposed could address the situation and what that staffing level is compared to what it is currently. >> the numbers we provide you when we are certifying preposition proposals are

endeavoring to remove the question of what the appropriate staffing level is from the equation and provide a comparison of if you replace a model currently providing civil servants at a certain account with a light proposal using contractors, what is the difference in salary, which is the question with prop j. the numbers i provided earlier are controlling for reduction in staffing levels that the union has discussed. i think the health department could speak most appropriately to whether they think the current level of civil service staffing is appropriate and what a reduction in the count would mean to security at the hospital. >> i think the numbers of security of the sheriffs that we have today is inappropriate. less than that would be questionable. supervisor chiu: what is that level? >> it is 84. >> one of the issues -- but

director -- budget director through the chair. what the issues with regard to alternate proposals and the difference between 63 and 71 are not management staff so much as supervisory staff who are working staff. so in the model that the health department has currently, there are staff classified as supervisors, but they're not people who sit in the office and manage security guards. they are working staff the or security staff -- who are security staff. if you remove those fte's from the question, it is not just a reduction in management. it is a reduction in the level of security personnel who are operating, and that has been one of the discussions that we have had with the union and through the alternate proposals, and

also one of the reasons that we asked the controller's office to do the apples to apples comparison that you suggest. if we were to replace those working supervisory staff where it -- actually, just using the non-supervisory security personnel, there would probably be a very slight difference in the change in the cost per fte, because the supervisors are paid at a slightly higher rate. the savings will not be equivalent to removing 8 fte from the floor of the health department facilities. it would be just a slight difference in the pay rate for those 8 fte's. supervisor chiu: this feels a little bit like groundhog day. we keep having this conversation year after year. i had hoped that between last year and this year, we could have started the conversation

earlier to engage in figuring out how we find these savings. i think we absolutely have to find these budgetary savings, given how little room we have in the budget. but, on the other hand, neither of these illusions we're looking at feels exactly like they are able to address all the issues we have here -- neither of these solutions we're looking at feels like they are able to address the issues. is there a way for us to get to and achieved some very real savings? i hope that we can actually get there in a way that would be satisfactory to all parties, but i want to get a sense from within the department what kind of conversations you have had over the past year around this topic. >> we have had prop j, as far as the budget, for several months now. we have not had conversations with the union about security. they have not come up in my conversations with the union. supervisor chiu: ok. >> i want to a knowledge that

over the past couple of months, this has been, as we have discussed, a longstanding issue, and in the budget for the current year a year ago as we were having this discussion, we did spend a significant amount of time talking through these issues and ultimately ended up with the ipo model in the budget. that has been an ongoing discussion. just in recent weeks and months, i do want to a knowledge that the union has been very engaged with us, and we have been spending quite a bit of time -- i have, i know the health department, finance, and my office has been working through the various numbers and proposals with the union, and that has been, from my perspective, a good conversation. so we have been trying to work with them to talk through these issues and look through the numbers. they have been very productively engaged with us in that regard. supervisor chiu: i appreciate

that. obviously, i feel like we're not necessarily there at this moment for us to make a decision. colleagues, if it is ok for us to move this decision to tomorrow, i would support that. but i think if there are additional conversations that we could have, and over the last few days, i have been going back and forth between his department and sciu to see if there is a place we can get to that will work, but i am willing to keep doing that over the next 24 hours to see if we can get there. >> and so are we, supervisor. we're definitely open to have more conversations. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor wiener: i just want to underline the issue of the police is being brought up. in my conversations with san francisco general, and with others, it seems like there are issues around the institutional police. i think the department has been very clear that it does not want

to form and run its own security service in terms of the institutional police. given that, i really want to reiterate that the potential blend between private security and the sheriff's department is one that we need to look at. i think the sheriff needs to be very much involved. i know there may have been some conversations in the past about this, but given the timing, i think it is important that we quickly engage the sheriff to see what is possible, so that we do not have a sort of this gaping either/or kind of situation. >> and we also feel that if we have that conversation, we would be open to that. we think that the ipo issue is the big management issue. we do not think that we could get to the savings this year if we went to that model. that would be the other

alternative. supervisor chu: thank you. and to the department, can you speak to the budget analyst recommendation? >> yes, i think we're almost there. i know that mr. rose may have some corrections to his report. i will see if he has those. we want to thank his office and also don, who has been very helpful. supervisor chu: thank you. budget alice recommendation. >> our total recommended reductions are $1,098,840. of those, 80.9% our general fund reductions. $345,000 are ongoing reductions. we also recommend closing out an expended general fund incumbrances, which would allow the return of $64,709 to the

general fund. the total savings of $1,000,000.106 -- and we come to the total savings with the general fund. what the department was referring to in terms of the correction, the report is correct except on page 73, which does not change the bottom line at all. on page 73, where you see the recap, the general fund impact isshould be $543,623. the total would be $888,840. the non general fund would be $210,0000. the totals would be the same. so my citation of the original

general fund savings are correct. supervisor chu: to be clear, from my understanding, the report shows savings in terms of total recommended reductions of 1,000,098 belt -- 1,000,098 $840. it should be $888,804. >> and that number on page 64 of our report is stated correctly, where i initially commented. supervisor chu: can use it to the number is again? >> of the recommended reductions, $888,840 our general fund. in addition, there's another $64,709 to close out general fund encumbrances bit of the total recommended savings would be $1,163,549. of those recommended savings, $953,549 would be sent to the

general fund. supervisor chu: is the department in agreement? >> yes, we are. supervisor chu: if we do not have any objections on taking those reductions, can we do that without objection? we will do that without objection. thank you very much to the department. are there any further questions? i know that supervisor chiu mention the desire to continue the conversation to tomorrow. supervisor chiu: i did have one more question. to the director, i understand, with regards to the security situation, 20% of the staff are managers. is that correct? >> i have no idea. i am not sure if our staff knows. 28%. supervisor chiu: 20% of the staff are managers. -- 28% of the staff for managers. is that correct? it seems high. >> i think the question is, what is a manager?

in a hospital setting where you're running 24 hours a day, 365 days a year, you have a working supervisor and my your staff that is working. we do not consider that to be management, but we consider that to be the person who would be authorizing overtime in case someone did not show up to work or would be dealing with someone injured on the job. that would be managing the staff. but the person performing the supervisory role in being in charge at night and on weekends really requires -- a 24-hour setting records to have one person in that capacity around the clock. it has to be four people or more on the 24-hour, seven day week basis. if you include those individuals in the percentage of management, you can get to a 28% number. but if you look at those as working supervisors, it becomes a definition of who they are and what they're doing. i do not agree with the 28%

factor. it is a function of who they are and what they do. i would say that the management -- to buy were talking management, to me, it would be someone -- if i were talking management, to me, it would be someone managing security. it might be working monday through friday but having a larger responsibility for managing security. working supervisors or functioning in the field, as well as performing that function -- a would not call it management. >> i exactly agree with what he is saying. this is the same issue that we discussed with the question of 71 versus 63 fte's. those steps are in supervisory roles, but they're working on the floor. if you were to eliminate those positions, he would not be eliminating and management function. you would be eliminating a

security function. so they are providing a direct security function. that is the issue that we discussed in response to your question earlier. and certainly, there would not be a 28% management ratio -- a 28% management ratio would be unacceptable for any city function of this nature, and that would not be something that would be included in the operation. supervisor chiu: i appreciate the good discussion over the spill over the next 12 to 24 hours, i would like to see if there's anything we can do -- i predicted discussion over this bill over the next 12 to 24 hours, i would like to see if there's anything we can do. we have to ensure that we have real security and safety on our wards. i will continue to push toward that. supervisor chu: thank you, supervisor. we have acted on at the department's recommendations -- the budget analysts

recommendations for the department. i want to thank ms. garcia for coming and presenting the budget. of course, we will continue dialogue around the prop j issue. next department is the human services agency. >> good afternoon, supervisors. i am the director of the human services agency. we have worked with the budget analyst office over the last week and have come to agreement on the recommendations. supervisor chu: great. mr. rose, which elect to articulate those? >> -- would you like to articulate those? >> the total recommended reductions are $816,232. there's also a close out from under expended encumbrances of

$134,055. together, the recommendations resulting in a savings of $950,287, of which $488,210 are savings to the general fund. supervisor chu: thank you. and the department is in agreement with the project close out as well? >> we are. supervisor chu: thank you. given that there is agreement for both, can we did this without objection? that will be the case. thank you very much for being here. ok, colleagues, we have a number of items that are outstanding. we have gone through the departments. if i can ask for a few motions to be made -- items number one and two, we will be recessing this meeting to coincide with the remainder of the budget for tomorrow. but item one and two will be recessed until tomorrow. however, items three and four are the aao and the aso for the enterprise departments, which we heard in may.

we need to take a motion to combine both of those items into the full budget of one and two. can we entertain a motion to combine items two and three to items one and two? we have a motion. we had a second. without objection. ok. we have items number 7, 8, and 10 which were dispensed with already. items number 5 and 6, these were items we made amendments to previously because of state regulations around noticing for fees. we have to open these specific two items of public comment. i want to do that now. items number 5 and 6, are there any members of the public who wish to speak on these items, 5 and 6? this is public works, a temporary street occupancy fee and the admin code for the public administrator. we will close public comment on these two items. colleagues, can we take a motion to send these items out to the full board? ok, we have got a motion by

supervisor mirkarimi. seconded by supervisor cohen. we will do that without objection on july 12. ok. there is item number nine, which is declaring the city's intention to appropriate the available rainy day reserve funds to the unified school district. i believe we intended to schedule this earlier, but it fell off the list. i wanted to make sure that we get this forward. i believe supervisor kim as amended -- has an amendment to make or some comments. supervisor kim: thank you. i have an amendment. this is at the suggestion of supervisor mar, who pointed out that in our layoff list from the school districts, there also paraprofessionals and child development staff. i wanted to a knowledge of that

list. i distributed copies of the amendment. it is a change to the 3rd whereas. the school district will suffer a loss of revenue and it will need to notice layoffs of teachers, principals, administrators, paraprofessionals, and child development staff and due to these cuts. supervisor chu: thank you. there is a motion to amend the resolution to include paraprofessionals and child development staff to read the third whereas clause. we have a motion. can we take that without objection? we will do that without objection in these amendments would still allow us to move the item for to the full board, correct? great. so, colleagues, given the amended legislation, can we have a motion to send this out to the full board? ok, we will do that. motion made by supervisor mirkarimi. a second by supervisor kim. we will do that without objection. i believe the only remaining items we have on the agenda are

items number one, two, and again, three in four have been incorporated into one and two, and item number 11, which is the prop j. can we take a motion to recess until tomorrow at 1:00? ok, we have a motion to recess this board meeting to 1:00 tomorrow. thank you very much. we will do that without objection. supervisor avalos: good morning.

welcome to thursday, june 9, 2011 meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors meeting. my name is david campos. i am the chair of the committee. we are joined by president david chiu, as well as a mark farrell who will be here shortly. we want to thank sfgtv staff who are covering the meeting. madam clerk, do we have any announcements? >> i would like to announce to please turn off all riinger volumes on cell phones. and--- ringer volumes on cell phones. supervisor campos: thank you.

if you could please call item one. >>item 1, hearing to receive regular status reports on the america's cup. supervisor campos: this is something i introduced with supervisor mirkarimi. we want to make sure that we provide the necessary oversight in the implementation of this -- of the various agreements that are implemented, and more specifically to make sure that all of the interests of the city and county of san francisco are protected come into the extent that there are certain obligations that those are met not only on the city part, but on the part of the cities involved. we have been joined by committee vice chair supervisor farrell. with that, i will turn it over

to stop. >> good morning. mike martin and office of economic and work force development. i am pleased to come before you today to update you on the progress towards achieving the ambitious but exciting projects outlined in the host and the new agreement for the 34 america's cup event. -- and the venue agreement for the 34th america's cup event. i have documents describing the even-related obligations. broadly speaking, these are the associationthings associated wie event itself and focuses away from the real-estate and those types of things. obviously we can get into more detail on each item in the memo or the presentation itself. with that, i will turn to the

slide. i see that it is already up. a quick overview of the presentation. we will start out with a background for those who want to know more about what the event looks like it's self and what it embodies in terms of bringing those events for work. we will go through the organizational structure between the parties and swell as the intergovernment parties and the agreements. describe the permiting process, which is obviously a critical part of achieving what is proposed, and must be completed before any final decisions can be made. a set of plans that are called for under the agreement, as well as additional plans relating to the events that we feel would help make clear operational needs of what needs to be done to achieve, to create the picture we're trying to create. lastly, i would like to go

through topflight description of the federal and state court nation of birds along the key aspects of bringing these teams and the vent stack to san francisco in the way that is called for in the event the agreement. -- and event staff brcoming to n and cisco and the way that is called for in the event agreement. the america cup protocol was signed that detailed the rules bringing the 34 america's cup for work. the host agreement is the america's cup organizing committee. that is a locally-formed non- profit corporate group. they are mainly charged with partnering with the aca in

bringing forward corporate partnerships and other funding mechanisms for the partnership and local fund raising, a philanthropic efforts to cover $34 million of public cost of putting on the events. as i mentioned, there is a memo that describes in more detail the city obligations that are called for under the host venue agreement. i think the key backbone of the city's obligation of the ball around three things -- revolved around three things. completing the ceqa process. completing the plant, which i described earlier in will explain further as we move forward, and secure federal and state permits for authorizations. also, the event activities themselves on the event days. a little background on the

proposed event timeline. there will be an initial series of what are being called the america's cup world series events. these are in effect a tour of things that do not linked directly to the competition of the 34 america's cup, but incorporate the same teams, 45 foot version of the 72 boats coming in for the america's cup events, and are designed to start giving people a good picture of what this new era of america's cup racing will look like with fixed sale, solid-wing sales, and incredibly high speeds. a very exciting prospect. the first three races -- locations have been set for this year. and portugal, plymouth, and late in the year in san diego, california. next year there will be several even, two