83, 84, 85, and a project on page 87. with regard to the policy recommendation on page 86, that is tied to the item on the manager principal analyst position on page 82 where the department is still providing to the board and the budget analyst at likewise savings by reducing full-time positions to a part- time position, correct? the budget analysts. >> there are components to the recommendation, what is the exception. we're not recommending it, so we can go down to 9.24 hire date of august 1. the second part is consistent with other recommendations, recommending this is manager 1. we don't believe this is an appropriate classification. they specified that management positions typically meant supervise staff and this is not a position that will be

supervising staff. and the remainder, because this is a new program, we consider this to be a policy called for the board of supervisors because it will give the determination if they want this program. so that i understand the difference, -- the the understan supervisor kim: the understand the difference, is in addition? -- so that i understand the difference, is it in addition? of day. >> of the budget analyst recommendation represents a $16,000 savings to us. the department's alternative is

a $200,000 plus addition. >> any colleagues have comments? >> de you have someone in place currently? i had a question about the interim exceptions. do you have someone in place this week that will be able to start on july 1? >> we have someone we have been working with. >> somewhat on his staff being paid part-time? thank you. >> we appreciate the budget analyst and the department able to come to agreement on the vast majority of disagreements. it was well over $1 million.

we're down to under $100,000 of disagreement over one position. when we first did the lgbt taskforce legislation, we had initially anticipated the task force would be staffed without adding headcount. we had discussions about that. when i first saw this, i was a little bit apprehensive. but in thinking about it, and i am convinced that it is appropriate for a couple reasons. it is a part-time positions and it has been reduced beyond what it was before. there is also a to pinpoint issue that this is not just for the lgbt task force, there is a

need for staffing for the dementia related network. this would be a low-level and clerical ministerial support in terms of the agenda and the minutes. given the growing senior population in the city and our need to grapple with those issues, i am convinced that a part-time higher level positions to that the person can do the substantive policy work, it is warranted. i was skeptical at first, but i am convinced this is appropriate. i suggest that we support the department on this. supervisor kim: i was not aware this was a part-time position. >> we started looking at it as a full-time position, but we have come to the conclusion that we could use part-time and it would

work for us. .625. supervisor kim: one other question on pragmatic hiring by july 1. now you have someone in mind, but is there a process you have to go through before you hire the individual? >> not even debating in this position exists, but the interim position i still have trouble with. why do we need to approve that when it is next week? >> we believe that with this particular classification, we will have less of the allied time to put someone in place than any other position. supervisor kim: but you will not be able to hire by july 1. >> august 1 will be fine.

supervisor chu: if there are no other questions, anything else? given that we have a majority of agreement from the department and also that there is an alternative to one of the recommendations that seems to make sense, i would like to propose that perhaps we accept all of the budget analyst recommendations where they currently have an agreement with the budget analysts. the project goes out on page 87, we do not accept the policy recommendation on page 86. and related to the last recommendation that state's the $16,000. instead, we will take the recommendation to have a 0922 position only at part time. also to allow it to begin august

1, that would result, and my understanding, $42,000 in savings plus $16,000 roughly in savings. can we entertain that motion? supervisor avalos: got was very well stated. i will support this motion and also was a co-sponsor. how wanted to make sure i said supervisor chu: we have that motion on the floor and we will do that without objection. he will now go to the department of public health.

>> good afternoon, supervisors. how want to thank the staff, particularly pemoline. and we are in agreement on a list of amended recommendations. we're not in agreement with the policy recommendation regarding the staffing necessary for the whole office. supervisor chu: can we go to the regular recommendations first? >> as the department indicated, we are in agreement with everything on page 67 with the exception of we're withdrawing $465,000 for professional and specialized services. on 67, the department is in agreement with everything on page 68. on page 69, the department agrees with the revised recommendation that would

increase specialized services by $150,000 so that it would go from $5.6 million to $5 million .3 million. the amount would b 5 millioe --e recommendations you do not see at all. one is a psychiatric social worker with related benefits. it is to reduce to .92 the 2012 start date. a savings of 9840.

an additional $40,000, so the totals would be changed in 12- 13. the total savings would be 951,000. i'm sorry. 848,972 in 12-13 to include 522 and an ongoing of 605450. in the second year of 1314, there woudl be an ongoing savings and the department is an agreement with all of these recommendations. supervisor avalos: just a question about i have been

hearing from a lot of people about the graveyard shift and apparently there was going to be a change about creating a joint system with general hospital, but it looks like the construction has not been able -- hope the change hasn't been enabled. as there been a reversal? >> we are reducing to telephone operators and we found there were only taking 10 calls. we are moving that to a nursing support staff. they will be trained in getting the necessary equipment. the other staff will have to be trained to do that to receive this savings of $140,000 doing that. there is a transfer of function. supervisor avalos: the staff is being laid off?

>> we will try to find positions for them, but it could be an outcome of that. this is part of the efficiency in order to not cut other services. supervisor avalos: i have heard reports that we have -- at what we have will be not adequate. >> we believe it is adequate and the staff will not take on those responsibilities until they are trained. the equipment is there to enable them to do that work. this is a non-clinical service that even the folks there have to be trained in these areas of the emergency operation. that can be trained to other staff. in fact, they will be closer to the nursing office to do that.

supervisor cohen: how many persons could lose their position? >> two full time fte's. >> you are going to eliminate -- >> senior telephone operators. supervisor cohen: and we are moving the nursing staff? >> just the graveyard shift. supervisor chu: in terms of those positions, generally what is the volume of telephone calls that come in for that service? >> i don't know during the daytime, but i assume we can give you that. during the daytime they take a lot of calls from outside people that want to visit their loved ones in the hospital. the volume is much higher. but during the nighttime,

there're only 10 calls a night. supervisor chu: we have agreement on a number of recommendations at the other is the outstanding policy question. i know that bevin dufty is here to speak as well, but before we do that, can we accept the budget analyst recommendations except for the areas where they have articulated a change. on page 67, the specialized service reduction has been withdrawn. on page 69, it has been increased by $150,000 in terms of cuts. the budget analyst has articulated additional cuts on the current expenses worth 50,000. and a later start date for psychiatric workers that would result in savings of 848 -- i am

sorry, $98,000. >> is $9,840. in the psychiatric work is just a starting time and the other expenses are $40,000. supervisor chu: do we have that motion? without objection. >> if i may talk a little bit about the staffing of the whole office. these positions are really essential for the department of public health. i can tell you that since he has been in this office, i speak to him if not bailey, multiple times a day to try to coordinate with so that staff is important. i hope you know my support for

that. supervisor chu: thank you, director garcia. another request last week, so in regard to these, if you can come up and share information with the committee. >> good morning. and do you want to ask a question or do you and me to talk for a second? supervisor kim: speaking generally to these positions listed under the policy recommendations, i know some questions had come out and this is within the department so i apologize for not bringing you up prior. just some questions regarding the recent budget requests around enhancing shelter staff and our housing rental subsidy program. i know is in large part with initiatives with ho. >> i will try to blend them

together. lopez tried to look at outcomes for individuals in support of public and affordable housing, living in the continuum of housing services and the continuance of families striving to become successful. to speak to your question correctly, there was a hearing about shelter access earlier this spring and it brought a lot of different issues and challenges. the city has faced very difficult budget times, so the focus has been on preventing cuts. i think this is very different focusing on poverty for the city. there is an area where there is a level of the collaboration that i have not seen in my 20 years here. the advocacy community got together with the providers to talk about the possibility of

making investments. the mayor has taken a step that makes it possible to talk about what the board might be able to do to make some strategic investments and improve outcomes for individuals that are in a shelter. what we have is a package that was developed and focused on the emergency shelter system. there has been a dramatic increase for case managers that are in the shelter system. that makes it more difficult for individuals agreeing to accept services to move on successfully. those numbers are extremely high right now. during that meeting, they asked that the advocates and providers come together to focus on the resources centers that play an extremely important role where people access shelter beds and looking at the rapid rehousing program that has really become the mantra for the federal program using some of us money,

we are not focused -- stimulus money, ha ha we are not focused on shelters. we have been one of the leading cities in the country'. this package was expanded from the emergency shelters to include the resource centers that played a pivotal roles in recognizing that just as we have talked about the cost of doing business, basic hygiene and food needs to make these facilities viable and attractive to people. it is extremely important. i am encouraged because i think this has been a great collaboration. i think the department of public health has been very dynamic in focusing on this entry point. we are seeing that people are much older, there are more likely to have mental illness and behavioral issues that can be extremely challenging for them to be housed on a permanent

basis. we are looking at dynamic ways, and we have had an entire workgroup that has been looking at how to restructure the entry points. we have a system that is very difficult. it is a system that really rewards people that are able to stand in line from 3:00 in the morning on. women have had to choose between losing their jobs and maintaining a shelter bed because of the allocation system is not a very thoughtful system. i want to say that one of the major focal point for us is that we will not be successful addressing homelessness until we have a vibrant public housing authority. many of you have been supportive of our efforts to house veterans. all the publicity that we got generated six landlords have come forward to say that they

would consider renting to a veteran. that is directly because of difficulties we have had in the program and the experience landlords have had from an administrative standpoint or from a resident standpoint. i want to say that jennifer from the coalition working in partnership with many of the organization's providing these services have laid out what i think is a thoughtful set of building blocks and investments that can be made around case management and safety for individuals in our shelter system. that is one of the biggest challenges. and when people ask if you can have the outstanding group of individuals to go out and talk to people, when people say no, that is feedback. i think making some of these strategic investments will encourage more people to accept shelter and have a better continue on and better success. supervisor kim: if i could speak

to something that was spoken about last week. i think there was general agreement about hprp, it has been successful in preventing families from becoming homeless. some questions have come up about how we change the model of service and around how we treat homeless clients. i completely understand our homeless clients rotate among a variety of different shelters and nonprofit organizations. it makes sense to have a single case manager. the request was increasing shelter staff and i was wondering if you could speak to that. >> there has been a case where there is a concern that they are not able to provide the type of support and case management enabling people to access the

services that they need. trent will focus on the fact that they would like to see more of that -- i think that from the standpoint of the providers, as long as we know we can work through. case management is important. i do think that it is an art form that we need to spend time. >> the hotels managed by one nonprofit, case managers by another. most of the time is spent trying to get rent paid.

>> any of these issues that people really need to move forward with their lives. the fact of the matter is accessing housing, it is extremely complicated. we need to make some effort to train and provide some incentives and support for the case managers. we do not have ratios that i think our optimal for people to be successful and move into supportive housing and other avenues. we have hundreds of units of vacant public housing. we know that in the homes for families initiative, we had the housing authorities to step forward and renovate units have five families prefer to remain in shelter and then take the unit at sunnyvale.

we are working together to go on sunnyvale and things of that sort. i do believe that is an exciting opportunity that we have to reinvent how we are responding to poverty and how we are giving people outcomes. a thing to the extent to the committee has the ability, making these investments are building blocks that if we see better outcomes for individuals, to deal with acuity and the severe mental ellis have the medical for a less of many of the people in our shelter system, i think we will see a different on the streets. supervisor chu: any questions or thoughts on these positions are policy recommendations.

supervisor wiener: in terms of the recommendation, that is in dispute. supervisor chu: i believe there are no recommendations that are in dispute, it is the policy recommendation. supervisor wiener: i think we should maintain that position. i think that it should be a supporting role in the mayor's office. supervisor chu: supervisor wiener has made a motion not to accept, it has been seconded by supervisor cohen. supervisor wiener: the motion is not to accept the policy recommendation which was a recommendation to eliminate the

positions. supervisor chu: the budget analysts did not recommend cutting the position, there are pulling it out. they have agreed not to take action on these items. can we do that without objection? thank you. can i ask the fire department to return? >> good afternoon. i would like to report that we have a -- i will defer to the budget analysts and to have come to agreement on those three items.

>> page 21 of the fire department's budget. we are recommending that the same amount to be placed on control and reserved. the revised the savings on the bottom of page 112. they recommend 75 to 18. -- 75,218. a total savings of 107,412 instead of 182,434. on page 222, we would advidse attrition savings to 5-- a

total savings of 698,017. and on the outyear 2013-14, we would revise the savings to -- i'm sorry. what is that number? 531736, a total savings of 715,868. those are our recommended revisions. supervisor chu: thank you very much. supervisor cohen? supervisor kim? supervisor kim: what does this total up to in terms of recommended reductions