attrition. some of that is because we intentionally kept positions vacant to control costs. we are hiring in both groups. we hired a lot of folks for the affordable care act. our training and staff development team is more robust now so we think we will be caught up and sort of achieve our natural rate of attrition i would guess by the end of the summer, maybe the fall. because we are doing such an aggressive work in our internal hr department and in partnership with dhr and the mayor's office to fill funded positions and certainly as i showed in the presentation, the work is there. our case loads are growing across are growing across the agency . >> i am not being critical of

the agency. we're not saying not give them positions. the positions, existing positions and in this case in specific positions that they are being requested which are vacant, can be filled from existing positions rather than creating new positions. let me just continue my presentation. >> let's have you finish first. >> so we've identified, supervisors, on page, the bottom of page 10 of our report, the last paragraph there where it says that hsa has a total of 157.2. the department provided us with updated information and we now would revise that number to 152.2, or 5 positions less than the 157.2, and these are across the relevant classifications that we're talking to today. on page -- well, i can go now to our recommendations. first of all our first recommendation

on page 12 is to reduce this requested supplemental appropriation by 1349.58, as i understand the department concurs with our recommendation. that's recommendation no. 1. on recommendation no. 2, we're recommending with respect to all of these positions that instead of a hire date of april 1st that it be may 1st. as i understand it, the department concurs with that recommendation. so it is the third recommendation that we have a disagreement on. and in that third recommendation, based on the new information provided by the department that there are 5 positions which we had previously identified as being vacant which are in fact filled positions, therefore we concur with the hsa on the need for those 5 positions so we're

withdrawing 5 positions from our recommendation. however, we continue to recommend a total reduction in the annualized positions by a total of 22 instead of 27, resulting in the reduction from 68 to 46 instead of 68 to 41. and we continue to recommend that those 22 positions be deleted. i might also add, supervisors, you are going to get a budget in a very short period of time and if the department can justify the need for those 22 positions at that time we'll take another look at it and report back to you. so those are our recommendations and we would be happy to respond to any questions. >> so, mr. rose, i get no. 1, no. 2 i'll get back to you, but i want to ask mr. rourke about that. so you are not discussing about reducing 22 more. is what you are saying is those positions, each one of

those actually has equivalent fte slot that exists today that are not being filled? >> in some cases there are existing vacant positions and in other cases, supervisor, we find that the positions are not justified. again, we made a budgetary review like we do during the annual budget and we saw that there was not a need based on workload for certain positions. we have a disagreement. and again i want to emphasize i understand this is state funds, but we look at it from the perspective of justification because it's still taxpayers' funds. >> thank you, mr. rose. mr. rourke, as you are up here, first of all i get pushing from april to may 1. at best we'll get this through early may now. >> we could probably push to

june 1. >> just on an honest realistic, you get funding today, really given the articulation, i get it, i get the frustration, how soon can you on board people? >> many of the positions are actually the fte that appear as vacant, what's appearing as vacant is the permanent civil service position, for example the 2905 civil service position was showing as vacant when in fact that position is filled by a temp person. there's actually a body in the seat. what we hope to do is they've already been trained, they are already doing the work, is transition that person into the permanent civil service position. we have enumerated how many are filled with temps, how many have been tx'ed into another position. >> do you agree with that? >> supervisor, we got detailed

information yesterday show wag we identified as vacant, what they identified as vacant, and we reviewed all of that. it is true some are filled by temporary positions but that doesn't mean that you need a new fte in the annual salary ordinance to hire that temporary position. that temporary position could be filled with the vacant position they are currently filling. >> i'm not mr. rourke, how does that work, you have a temporary position, you want to move a person from a temporary position to a permanent position, do we still have room in our budget funding there to fill any other temporary position that could continue to arise? >> we don't have, if you go classification by classification, enough vacancies without adding new fte, enough vacancies to do that transition as miss campbell said. a lot of our positions have been tx'ed to entirely different classifications. as

you roll through the 7 or 8 more more different classifications --. >> so you are going to see as you are moving some people from temps to --. >> into the new fte as authorized by the supplemental. >> so you will see --. >> they go away. >> they go away. can someone from the controller's office verify this is the process for temporary positions versus permanent positions? >> i think it's a crux that we have here today. we have temporary positions that and we have permanent positions we want to create with the aso amendment and we have money for that. once staff from a temporary position moves to a permanent position, that temporary position would no longer be around any more. i'm concerned that we're getting double counted here from the

budget analyst, i want to verify whether we're getting double counted or not, hoping you might be able to clarify how this process might work. >> i'm lisa sandler with the controller's office. with this particular supplemental we have not looked yet at the portion mr. rourke is speaking to about what positions are currently being filled by temp positions so i couldn't speak to that. i think your question was to process? >> how does it typically work? there are a lot of temps in the department. mr. rourke says the positions we will be creating could be filled by many of the temporary employees, so i want to make sure that as that process happens that a temporary employee is moving to a permanent position, that we're going to see the temporary position go away where it's not going to be placed in the budget where there will be a

position in the aso and money in the aao, so can you confirm what actually happens? >> my understanding of the kai temporary positions work, there's funding in the budget for the temporary positions but i have to go back and look at how exactly the fte's are written. i don't want to tell you the wrong thing but i can get back to you about that. >> mr. rourke >> we fund the temp salaries through our salary budget. we have our $10 million in salary savings, that is where we fund the temp positions. the reason we have so many temps is to meet that workload demand. an example would be, pick a 2903 classification eligibility worker, if we don't have an existing list but we know we have bodies coming through the door that need to be classified for benefits, for those willing to take a temporary six-month job we will fill that position

while we are con dupblting the exam. it's a way to meet our operational needs without having to go through the hr process mr. rose spoke of. >> i'm concerned we have this broad discretion within the department to have temps rise and fall but never quite go away and you have a way to manage your budget to have salary savings at year end or not and it seems, you know, the control should be a bit tighter than what they are. >> well, i can't speak to the city-wide control. the control for us is our salary budget and the control is also the temp positions are limited to 6 months so that's a good control for the dhr as well as for budgetary control. >> mr. rosen, when you look, you mentioned a number of positions you are recommending are based on lack of demand. do you look at just the amount of fte's being used or do you also look at temp positions being used to fill certain

parts of the demand as well. >> what we did is look at the workload justification for having a new position there. for instance, in -- harvey wants me to give an example. basically in some of the units in our attachment we say there is insufficient workload justification. we look at what they currently have in temples of positions and how many cases they handle and maybe what some of the enhanced requirements are under the new legislation and determine if they really need additional bodies to do it. >> i understand that kind of analysis. when you look at the number of positions do you also look at the temp poeptions they have? what we are hearing is there's a ton of temp positions filling kind of -- back filling

demand for services but the question is if you are only looking at fte's and equivocating and doing your math that way, we're not looking at what the demand is because we're also seeing what the part-time people are doing. >> if you say you have 10 positions to do 100 cases, whether those are filled with temp workers or permanent workers isn't the issue. if they say they need 15 people to work those cases, we are saying you haven't shown why you need 5 extra bodies to do the work. >> if i can give an example, our supplemental request asks for two 9702 employment training specialists. we currently have budgeted 19.15 fte we currently have filled 9, so you just look at those

numbers and say there's 10 vacant positions, why are you asking for two more? then you go across we have 17 temp exempt 9702 positions, so results in an adjusted count of negative 8. it's difficult to get this data and we shared it with them a few days ago but that's what we're looking at sort of we're budgeted for 19, we have 9 permanent but we're being filled by temps so really the vacancy number is artificial. >> i think we can simplify this quite a bit. we had two different arguments. one is the one we just explained to you, we looked at workload, whether it's being filled by permanent or temporary. taken unfilled position and assign it to that task. that was the other side of our recommendation. when they gave us new information yesterday we

in fact looked at five of those positions and we said you're right, those sht really vacant, you really do need the additional bodies, you need the additional positions. those were in cal fresh and we have a revised recommendation today so we took that information and revised our recommendations so we think our recommendations are pretty sound at this point. >> so if i could just ask a little bit of a different line of questioning, so understand all the comments about these are taxpayer dollars, they are taxpayer dollars and i fully agree with that. as a city we have to look at things maybe a little different lens at times. some your comment about this is all state and federal funded going forward starting in theory with july 1, i mean is it the case that not only the positions you are looking to fill to meet demand, i guess the argument would be it's

better to have state dollars fill it than general fund dollars, but no. 2 the future if you don't pull down from the state when they literally offer it to you, is it your experience in the past that that hampers future allocations? i absolutely understand both sides of the argument about it's all taxpayer dollars and it all affects us and it does but i think sometimes as a city we have to make choices. it's like the central subway money, some people would say that's a lot of money but if you are going to pull 80 percent of the money from federal sources it's not like if we didn't pull it, the federal government would give the money back to the taxpayers, they would spend it and give it to another city. we're not going to put it back in people's pockets, it's going to go somewhere else. >> that's exactly right. as it happens it will go to another county, a county that can demonstrate it has spent

the money and it has the need for additional funds. many counties, including ours, overspend our allocation. we may get $10 million for a certain program, medical is a good example, we may spend 12 million and it's a public policy decision that we negotiate at the board and the board and the mayor say, yeah, well, it's worth an additional $2 million in county funds to support medical. what obviously is the legislature approves the budget, the entire appropriation goes to social services who then decides how to apportion it among 56 counties. they look at fte, that all goes into their calculation and they say, okay, san francisco, you get x for example the cal works program, the $278 million additional dollars, let's look at their

historical program on cal works, wow, they have a robust program, they spend a lot of their money -- just as an aside we're not spending just to spend. we're not saying well we get it so let's figure out how to spend it. when we get the new mandates we roll it down to our program analysts, okay, what is it going to take you to meet this new client demand. we need a unit of workers, we need an analyst and we need a unit of clerks. we do an iterative process within the department. it's not as if the need isn't there and we are just spending it, the need is there and the reason i made the comment about state and federal because we're fortunate, finally, we haven't been the last 5 or 6 years, where we didn't get funding. now they have the money to do it and they are providing it to counties. so if we don't spend

it that means maybe contra costa gets more money. >> if we don't draw down the money from the state and we still have to meet a mandate. >> that's right. either we meet our mandates not as well or we don't meet our mandates or in the case of ihhs, which is a great example, we have a mandate to reassess every ihhs consumer once a year. we are reassessing 48 percent of our ihhs consumers every year because we don't have the case workers to do it. >> there's a 31.5 million allocation from the state, our recommendation is to reduce it by $134,000 for certain administrative costs. i believe the department agreed to that. the positions are not being funded by the 31.5 million, they are being funded by salary savings in the budget. i know there will be a

budget for 13-foerb coming forward in which there will be a new appropriation at that time. >> colleagues, any questions? further discussion? before we go to public comment, madam clerk, can we call item 2. >> item no. 2 is an ordinance appropriating approximately $31.5 million in order to support in home supportive services, cal works and other program expenditures in fiscal year 2013-2014. >> madam clerk, why don't we move on to public comment? anyone wish to comment on items 1 or 2? seeing none, public comment is closed. supervisor avalos, if you want to talk --. >> i don't know what to say.

i feel like we're pretty far apart. i don't in any way want to hamstring the human services agency on core missions and clearly there's a need for ensuring that people can access the many services that are provided, cal fresh, medical, and income support as well as all the job training. but i feel like it's pretty far apart between the recommendations from the budget analyst and the department. one idea i'm thinking is there a way to perhaps, you know, put money on reserve, on budget committee reserve, and get a report on actual hiring of new staff to implement these new programs and service integration and, you know, there's a part that we want to

hire for the current fiscal year and the bulk are going tor hired for the next fiscal year maybe in the summer we can get a report on how things have gone for the current year and we can base release of funds on those remarks from trent rourke >> to clarify, just to get specific what that would entail would be approving a salary ordinance for this fiscal year, given we have such a short period of tie, i think putting it on reserve it would just be back in a few weeks but it would be i think next year's the hsa position ordinance increasing that. that's almost --. >> so i have a mind --. >> sorry, there's another option to thin for a week to see if everyone can figure this out and i'll throw that out there's a different option. >> we can do that too. >> again, i'm sensitive to

timing and implementing, i'm sorry mr. city attorney if i screwed up my explanation there of my thought process. >> deputy city attorney john gepner. i wanted to be sure i was understanding supervisor avalos' comment. you can place funds on reserve. if you want to consider future aso amendments you can do that by continuing the item or as supervisor farrell says, approving the positions for this fiscal year, considering the position begin in next year's aso which you will be considering. >> i just don't know how to land on the number of positions in the aso to move forward today, but we do have money that is from the state, we know it's a certify night amount that would cover the services and the positions. so what i

was thinking was approving some portion, if not all, of the positions and then put money on reserve and get a report from hsa then that we can release the funds for, to cover the positions. you know but i also, i'm concerned there's a wide disparity between what the budget analyst's recommendations are and hr, a lot of positions that are before us. >> supervisor, if i could, we actually in terms of putting funds on reserve, because we are using salary savings dollars, as miss campbell said, it's not the appropriation that matters, it's the aso amendment, it's the actual position authority we are asking for the current year. and the reason we're doing this now and not in the budget year, the budget process next month, if we get new fte in the budget we are not able to hire, there

are point 75ft e6789, we are not able to hire until october, we hire in october, they get training, they are not drawing down until january or february. if we get authorization we are hire now or by mi june, get them trained and have them online by mid-summer. that's a 5 month difference. so irrespective of not drawing down the federal and state dollar for 5 months we're not serving clients and that's the sense of the urgency for us is to get the authorization for those new positions. >> so i'm fine with the whole doing it now versus in budget season, given what you talked about. that makes imminent sense. i think where i feel uncomfortable, we don't come across very often where there's such a wide gap and to either fall on one side or arbitrarily land in the middle, which is never the right thing to do, again i think the discussion here about, you know, again, part of the discussion becomes

do we need to do anything, aside from getting us individually comfortable, now we've heard the arguments to dive into the materials and look at that, again --. >> through the committee to the budget analyst, the analysis that i shared briefly with the committee on the number of budgeted fte versus the number actually filled and then overlaying the temp positions, as well as the positions that have been tx'ed, if you haven't had enough time to work with us to understand those numbers then perhaps a week would be been fis. but i don't know if you have had sufficient time to look at that or not, i guess is the question.

>> members of the committee, we could spend a week working with the committee if that would help the committee. i should consult with the city attorney but i believe you could approve the appropriation. >> then we approve the appropriation and budget committee reserve? i'm not sure i want to do that. >> i just wanted to make sure the appropriation isn't tieed to the positions, the positions have a completely different funding source. the use of the reserve isn't tieed to these positions. >> the accounting shift for ihs is the 27 million as well as the 2 million for the cal am program. >> fund the appropriation today. >> so the aso is item 1 and the appropriation is item 2. all right, so why don't we do

that, or i will make that suggestion, that we continue then item no. 1 to next week with the commitment on everyone's behalf that we work on this and spend some time, then we can move item no. 2 forward. just to be clear again, mr. rose, you did have a recommendation for item no. 2; is that correct? ?oo ?a yes, that's the $135,000 that the department as i understand concurs with. >> colleagues, can i have a motion to continue item no. 1 for one week? >> so moved. >> without objection. so moved. item 2, a motion to approve the budget analyst's recommendation for a reduction of $137,000, we can take that without objection, and item no. 2, can we move that item forward to the full board? we can take that without objection. madam clerk, can you call item

no. 3. >> item no. 3 is a resolution retroactively approving a lease between north beach retail llc and the city and county of san francisco for 2449 and 2450 taylor street for a 10 year term to commence on january 1, 2014, with a 10 year option for use as a mta ticket sales room, restroom and break room for muni operators. >> i'm kirsten legary with the san francisco mta and ask for approval of the lease. as you know, the sfmta has 76 transit lines with 146 terminals all over the city and into daly city. many routes are long,

taking 43 to 83 minutes each and -- yes, could you have somebody put the presentation on the laptop? thank you very much. so operators need decent safe and sanitary facilities in which to serve them for personal needs and they need to have those close by the terminal locations in order not to have to leave the scheduled routes. we have a variety of solutions to provide restrooms for operators and other field services staff, including 21 permanent restrooms all over the city, 15 temporary portables, which are in the process of being replaced, 22 licenses, leases and use permits and 28 free restrooms that are open to the public. we also have the operator convenience station project to

install prefabricated restrooms in three phases in the city. the first 7 units in 6 locations have been approved by the city, and we appreciate your support for those. the three rooms in the north beach housing buildings at 2449 and 2450 taylor street are very important. this is the location. at the end of the powell street cable car line. they are important for a restroom, a break room for the operator bes and other field staff, and for a ticket sales office. prior to demolition of the former san francisco housing authority development we negotiated a lease for these facilities. there was an operator restroom and a transit shelter on the adjacent sidewalk. those were demolished and these new facilities were constructed. the previous lease expired