supervisor chu: the department is in agreement with those cuts? >> yes. >> of that 576911: hundred 64,00743 our general fund reductions. there is a recommended return to the general fund -- excuse me, that is to the recreation and park fund, 35,343. that's not a general fund. the total general fund reductions are $164,743. total reductions are 612,000 tutored 54. supervisor chu: with regard to the service equipment, there was a proposed cut to software. can you speak about that and

why you are in agreement? >> this was funding that was approved for the department to implement a software package which is associated with our work order system, which we know as tma. the application would be on hand-held devices and allow our staff, carpenters, plumbers, ironworkers, to close out or quarters when they are in the field. if there's a broken toilet, they go out and fix it, they can close the work order and move on to the next item without having to come back to the yard in golden gate park. we thought it would be worthwhile in terms of increasing efficiency for the department. in terms of why we agreed with the budget analyst on this, it

felt like something we were not going to be able to come to agreement on. so we let ago. supervisor chu: in terms of the need and cost, the department as saying your expenses going to be about $180,000? if you reduce by $85,000, will you be able to go forward with this software? >> that is the total cost of the new software package. without the funding, we cannot implement the application. supervisor chu: currently in your business practice colony have plumbers or others going to make repairs throughout the city, when they finish a job any particular location, have to go back to the art at golden gate park? >> correct. our structural maintenance yard is in golden gate park. generally, what they do, it is instead of coming back after the

completion of every job, they leave themselves a space of time at the end of the day and come back and do all other data entry into the computers at the art. essentially, this would eliminate that need and they would have additional time over the course of the day to be of repairing things. this is an efficiency measure. supervisor chu: this is a coit- approved project? >> is. >>supervisor chu: i would like o leave this item open in terms of the maintenance service equipment. given where the department is, i know you are short staffed in terms of partners, custodians, and everything else. to the extent we can keep people in the field as opposed to having to travel back and forth to close out projects, i get a

good investment. colleagues, if we can take the remaining balance of closeout for projects worth $35,342, take the remaining balance of the recommendations except for the $85,000 in terms of the software work, can we do that without objection? >> thank you, supervisor. i appreciate that. supervisor chu: the next apartment is the children and families commission. -- the next department is the children and families commission. >> i'm the deputy director. supervisor chu: there were a number of recommendations provided to the department. that was something we could not take here. i'm wondering if these are items you agree with that would to be making those adjustments to your budget? >> yes.

supervisor chu: there is about 48,000 recommended by the budget analysts. is there is a neat -- is there anything you would ask? >> i'm sorry, i was just in discussions, but my understanding is the department disagrees with our recommendations. -- i'm sorry -- our recommended reductions are $48,992. this is not general fund and if the department incurs called the board of supervisors can implement the recommendations. supervisor chu: given the department does agree, can we take this without objection? the other conversation is run the question of reserves. that's something i would like to keep open as a conversation. i don't think we're going to come to any conclusion today about it, but given the fact with the state is not going to be sweeping the reserves we thought and given to have a

balance of about $9 million currently, even without assuming a large suite originally, perhaps there is room to talk with your commission about how we might be able to appropriate or use that fund indicated for first five. we look forward to this conversations in the coming days and perhaps months. the department of public health. >> in good morning, supervisors. -- good morning, supervisors.

i have some information for supervisor kim on our income -- on our hiv prevention measure. some of the changes was to incorporate some data and evaluation, quality assurance, and as well as trying to provide services directly without having a contract and the services did not increase, they stayed the same. we also have some information about the security issue. to supervisor mirkarimi, we did

to a survey of the hospitals in the area and through california and as you can see, several of them have some hybrid processes between sheriff's, a contract, or hospital employee. many of them have contracts and one of them have police. supervisor wiener: thank you. this is helpful. for the hybrids, particularly los angeles might be a good comparison. -- riverside, which might also

be a decent comparison. do we have any sense how they do it in terms of one thing i know that comes to mind is whether you could have a private security as a general matter and then have surest the peace in the highest risk areas such as the emergency room or the psych ward where there might be a high-risk to staff? >> i think that happens in los angeles and the riverside county area. there is a precinct station at the hospital cost that is how the work that out. supervisor wiener: i know this has been a discussion with the sheriff's department about whether it would be possible to have the contract and have a smaller number of deputies focused on those risky areas. >> i cannot speak for the

surest, but we would be open to that conversation. supervisor wiener: the question is how do we -- >> we would probably have to sit with a share of sen have that discussion. i would be happy to do that. supervisor kim: i'm very interested in the hybrid model. i know it's something i have brought up before, but particularly in areas like the emergency room where there are safety issues, i know one of the challenges was about a communication protocol. seeing that other counties to a hybrid, and curious how they do communication between private security and the sheriff. >> we can definitely do it through the sheriff's office and have that discussion. supervisor kim: thank you very much. supervisor mirkarimi: i agree

with the sentiment that if there could just be a reconsideration of how the department of public health is approaching this issue in entertaining perhaps an alternative proposal but that helps you get to the place you need to go in saving funding, but being cognizant of, as i know you know, issues on all of our minds. this is now the third or fourth time this issue has come before the budget committee. is essentially an annual issue. this has come before us -- i've been on the budget committee for six years. there are some arguments, i don't know if they sit well with people with knowledge we can rely or overlie on private security as opposed to a peace officer. we want the staff and the patience @ san francisco

general laguna honda to get the utmost care in safety provided for as well as the general public to visit. if there is a mechanism that recedes back from the contract thing on prop. j or finding middle ground, i would strongly encourage that be the case. >> we have all the same goals in terms of safety, so we would be happy to have that conversation. supervisor mirkarimi: as it relates to process, i'm not sure what was entertained. but you have a year's worth of discussion with the surest apartment and assurance department was simply complying -- the sheriff's department was simply complying with the department of public health --

from my characterization, managed retreats. it looks like a managed retreat from dph. i know there have been proposals put out there. i don't know how well those proposals have been vetted. the impression i have been given is that because there had been a decision to move forward on the decision on contracting out, that stops short of looking at anything else. >> i believe the controllers office should respond to that. >> yes, we have spent a fair amount of time reviewing the different proposals brought forward and comparing them to

the proposal in the budget before you. we continue to refine his numbers, but generally speaking, in that ip only model, on an annual basis, we would expect it would reduce the cost versus the current model by somewhere between $600,000 and $900,000 annually. for half a year, that would yield about $300,000 in savings versus the current model. offsetting that in the first year would be significant implementation costs but we have to model during the coming year -- modeling employees before the effective stop -- the of -- potentially there would be some savings in years beyond. i should say that is our current

work to refine numbers and make them apples to apples. the health department and sheriff's department have expressed concern regarding that operational model. supervisor chu: from my understanding, the ip only model, you're estimating a four- year savings as opposed to $600,000 to $900,000. >> as opposed to the proposal you have in front of the which saves $3.2 million. >> the half year model was $300,000 savings compared to the $3.7 million in savings? >> $3.2 million. supervisor chu: operationally, does the ip only model work? >> its not an option we would like to see. we have no requisitions in this area, so we don't believe there

will be a large amount of savings. it will take almost a year to get this operational from our opinion. supervisor chiu: i have had four or five meetings in the last week with the department and with our controller to understand us. i feel the different sides have not been able to explain to me how apple's compared to apples. one issue that continues to be raised is around actual safety and security. the suggestion the department has made is that you believe if we contract out these services, you would be better served from a safety standpoint and public health standpoint that you are currently by the sheriff's department. could you explain that again? it's a little counterintuitive. >> we put this up but to increase our safety ability but to not have to cut as many health and human services. there would have been an

additional $4 million in cuts. i'm looking at the proposal brought up, what with the next best alternative would be? the next alternative we felt was the security going out. we can get armed private security. we know that they can help us with our health care teams in terms of detention. we know that causing issues are on perception from the shares perspective and having the share of verses private security. we felt this was the next best option in terms of not having to cut health and human services. we also have a great deal of concern regarding the safety of our staff, the safety of the patients, and the safety of visitors. that is one of our utmost concerns. there are differences between what the sheriff can do in terms of detaining and what private

security can do, but this is not something we put up because we wanted private security as opposed to the sheriff, we did it for savings for health and human services. supervisor chiu: kenya enumerate what private security would be able to do that your shares deputies would not? >> patients leaving the hospital due to health conditions -- it they're trying to hurt themselves in the midst of trying to leave the hospital or in the bed, the sheriff can and has not been willing to detain the patients like that. family been willing to -- they have only been willing to detain patients that are 50/50. according to the sheriffs, that is what they felt their rules

with -- the rules of engagement was. we have had several conversations with the city attorney's on what they would do and would not do. supervisor chiu: i have a question on the budget. supervisor wiener: i understand there is the issue of the cost savings. i know that is a factor and i think that is one that looms large for a lot of us given the cuts we would love to avoid. you are saying the cost factor was the primary motivator, but i also heard last week, dph was saying there would be non- monetary advantages, which you just described for security. >> as i explored this issue with the leadership of san francisco general, i was surprised they

were concerned about the role of the sheriff and what they thought about the contract. this has been a development process of trying to go to a contractor. those issues have been discussed over the last six months. we discussed the opportunity of a private contractor and they felt that would solve some of the other issues that had been going on. supervisor wiener: for me and for others, the cost issue is important as we try to save critical safety net functions. i also want to make sure that the employees at san francisco general and visitors are safe. no. 2, the hospital is able to manage itself in a broadway -- in a broad way as effectively as possible. what i'm hearing is there are

operational advantages to having private security. but also hearing in some of the high-risk areas of the hospital like the emergency room or the psych ward, there could be some safety impacts. that's why i want to come back to the potential hybrid model. at any given point in san francisco general hospital, how many deputy sheriffs are present in the hospital? >> 39 -- 49. supervisor wiener: if you were to just have deputies in the high-risk areas, that would strike me as a much reduced number. >> i would have to look at that. supervisor wiener: there could be a hybrid model that achieves the lion's share of the savings we're talking about but does allay some of the concerns we have heard about, gang members

chasing people being brought to the emergency room or issues where people get out of control -- perhaps it would be safer and the employees would feel more comfortable having peace officers there. >> through the development of these conversations, we would be supportive of that. it's important for the public that the perception of safety be there and having surest there at the most high-risk areas of the hospital, i think everyone is in favor of that. supervisor wiener: other than the emergency room and cyc, are those the only high-risk areas or are those the only ones? >> those are the highest risk areas. we can work with our hospital staff to determine if there is another area to look at. supervisor mirkarimi: just to return back to the discussion --

i think you are getting the drift that it's hard for us to fathom a $13 an hour security guard would actually be more empowered that a sworn peace officer that would be a member of the surest part by 2 has been the primary safety person inside our public institutions. when the testimony last week by the department of public health suggested, asserted there would be more authority given to a security guard, i did ask the surest apartment and i have talked with legal counsel to understand what and how we would be able to rely on that difference of authority in a rent a guard verses a peace

officer. i can see where there might be a splitting of hairs, but i walked away from my query of them thinking our gut feeling is right. a peace officer unquestionably is more empowered statutory away to be able to do what's -- statutory early to be able to do a security guard is not. even if there is debate, knowing the industry of private security, or you have high turnover cali have people who are typically not on pension and have very little benefits. the fact we would actually rely on them in situations that could be high risk for more at risk situations based on a proposal submitted to us i think would automatically make anybody question how the practical expectation is that this particular security guard would

subject themselves to something a more well trained, armed peace officer would be. that is where we are at this particular place. relative to the question of the 49 members of the shares department, how many would remain if we were to move forward on the proposal that is before us? what they all be evacuated? with their be some remaining? there has been a floating number. >> if the contract did this out, there would be no assurance. supervisor mirkarimi: 5 understood there would be a least two remaining. is that the case? -- i understood there would be at least two remaining. >> there are differences between a police and a security guard, so we do understand that.

supervisor mirkarimi: i asked this last week and it got a little misunderstood -- in the scenario of transferring 49 peace officers, who would effectuate a citizen's arrest? >> security guards can do citizen's arrests. they can also call the police to come on to the scene. supervisor mirkarimi: that is true, but they also incur a significant liability if they themselves are taking action that could potentially be a challenge as a violation of somebody's civil rights or acting inappropriately because they are not as trained as a peace officer might be trained. that is a consequence that may not be seen as a factor on the front end, but on the back end, it makes me wonder if we're taking on something that could only make us regret later on.

i think that goes to one of the streams of thought about this discussion. >> we understand the concerns of the supervisors regarding the safety of our patients. that is the number-one concern that we had in this process, what the best next thing we could do from the sheriff's perspective. you can see some of the other hospitals and maintain a contract employees in this way in terms of security. we do know that having sheriff's with guns does create more safety from a public perception than security guards. but these security guards can create a safe environment. they do in other hospitals. that is what we proposed them. supervisor mirkarimi: well, the gun is hopefully something that never has to be used. it is the question of the escalating use of force that is empowered by the penal code to that peace officer that a

security guard does not possess. so that is why i really still stand unclear on how we justify that. but to round this out, instead of the transferring of all 49, has there at least been a discussion of some hybrid, so that there would be -- i think this goes to the intimation of some of the other supervisors, of there at least being a decent posse of deputy sheriffs on hand? >> no, there have not been. supervisor mirkarimi: thank you. supervisor chu: thank you. just a question for you -- just a question. i know that the model which the office articulated the potential savings, that was the same thing proposed for the current year, but we were negroes -- we were never able to implement it, right? >> right, exactly. part of the issue has been the

ability to start that process. it takes at least three months to do the checks on all of the employees. it is a long drawn-out process. we started working on this as of this fiscal year and continue to do that until a decision has been made. supervisor chu: ok, so the proposal before us is a proposal that has been a year in the making and has still not been implemented. it is not a new proposal. >> yes. supervisor chu: and with regards to the -- i think supervisor mirkarimi brought up this question. i did want to ask perhaps todd to address this. the way the department explain this in the past has been that, given the budgetary pressures, the department had to think about all the ways that you write your operations and look at where you can make a change at where you can make a change -- look at the ways that you run