back. which item do you think we're being unreasonable about, because in the last four years, our staff budget has not gone up. i would draw your attention to the c.s.a. audit that we just received yesterday that includes all the information about our staffing and our budget and about their recommendations, and i've accepted all their recommendations because i think they did a good job on this. so it's hard to adjust and say say wait a minute, i want to bring my overtime down, like i've been requested to do, and also do it in a way that makes sense through civilianization, but also in a way that moves deputies back into sworn positions but also getting enough people hired that we won't be back here again with this overtime issue and continuing on that through the next year. and overtime isn't just -- it's not just about the money in overtime, it's about the toll it takes on the department trying to fill positions, and i think you have recognized that,

and i appreciate that -- >> chair fewer: sheriff, i just want to say, i think this committee has heard that. i think this committee, as you know, has heard that and recognized that, and that is not what i'm talking about. i didn't know about this $232,000 that you're giving back. could you please explain -- and mr. b.l.a., were you aware of that? >> well, that's what they recommended. >> if there's an alternative proposal that the department is presenting, we'd be happy to take a look. >> chair fewer: okay. mr. holling? >> if we were given a dollar amount by the b.l.a., we'd be happy to identify $250,000 to give back. we don't think cutting back the

civilianization is the way to do it. it's the qualitative aspect of these services, not the dollar amount. we're happy to work with the b.l.a. to identify $250,000. >> chair fewer: that is very good to know, mr. holling. so confer with the b.l.a., and i'm wondering if you're willing to come back after conferring with the b.l.a. -- we'll take a break -- after lunch. i think the thing about the dollar amount, we are hearing you. we have heard from years, we have heard from your deputy sheriffs how they resent you making them work mandatory overtime, and taking time away from their families. my husband was in law enforcement for 35 years, but i want to say we have heard you, and we applaud the fact that

you requested a controller's report on staffing and you are trying to follow the recommendations. what we don't applaud, quite frankly is unwillingness or perceived unwillingness to find any funding savings within. so i think the disagreement is ideology, not monetary, and that we can come to -- this is the budget and finance committee, so if you can confer with the b.l.a. on this, i think that we might be able to come to an agreement today, and i definitely think that this committee hopes so. so if you wouldn't mind -- if you have a time constraint, we hate for you to have to come back tomorrow. actually, we'd like to get it done today. if you can do that, that will be great, and we'll hold our other committees -- i mean, departments ahead of you. and if you can work that out, and i hope you can, we'll get that settled today.

>> okay. thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we'll do that. we'll do that. >> chair fewer: okay. so let's hear from public health now. >> good afternoon, chair fewer and supervisors. grant colfax, department of public health. we are in alignment with the b.l.a. and their recommendations. we'd like to thank kristina and severin for their hard work on our collaboration and we are in agreement with the recommendations. >> chair fewer: thank you, dr. colfax. in fact, let's hear first from the b.l.a. >> thank you, madam chair. the department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-20 is $52,875,813 or 2.2% more

than the fiscal year 18-19 budget of $2,369,898,228. the department's proposed $2,228,448,000 is .1% less than the mayor's proposed fiscal year 2019 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $3,822,052 in recommended reductions. 2,034,833 are ongoing savings. this would still allow an

increase of 2.1% in the department's fiscal 19-20 budget. of the 2,063,364 in recommended reductions, $50,000 are one time savings, as you just heard from the department, we are in full agreement. [inaudible] >> supervisor ronen: yes. i just wanted to thank everyone from the department for getting me all that data.

i know there is one outstanding thing, but i just wanted to say i appreciate it. thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you, supervisor ronen. we do have one item, which is item 5, which is an expend. madam clerk, would you please call item 5. [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. dr. colfax, would you like to comment on that? >> yes. i'll have greg wagner, our chief financial officer comment on this. >> item number 5 is an item that you see each year for the budget submission with the department of public health. this is a set of grants that we receive from the state on an ongoing basis. as part of the conditions for those grants, we're required to have approval by this board either under our local laws or requirements of the state and rather than bring those individually to you through the

accept and expend process which is coumbersome and since these are repeating and recurring grants, we bring them to you in a single resolution at the budget period and ask for your approval to accept those funds. they are aproeptpropriated in proposed budget. >> chair fewer: all right. we'll open this up for public comment. mr. wright, do you have any public comment on item 5? >> you know, i object to the services that's been applied by department of public health. you're getting all this money

to serve people with a kbip combination of physical and mental disabilities, and they're homeless. you're making appointments to see people out sleeping in sleeping bags, and you make an appointment to come back out to the same time location expecting to see them and provide them with services, and then you're in the newspaper how you've got a shortage of beds. says it right here, and then, the amount of beds that you provide is less than 2,000, okay? you've got mental professionals saying the best way to provide services with people with disabilities and mental disabilities is to provide them with permanent housing. the amount that you're spending on calling yourselves treating people with mental disabilities should be spent on providing permanent housing and then you can provide the treatment that's needed that you're being paid for because the persons -- the people that you're helping have permanent housing and you know where they're located

instead of running around the city like a chicken with its head cutoff. you've got approximately 8,011 homeless people out on the street right now, and you're supposed to be providing mental services for them. how are you going to serve them when they're out on the streets? and by the same response, your shelter system is outrageous. here's a person right here that's got nowhere to go, got a mental disability and nowhere to go, and the police is moving their property when they're living out in the tent. the shelters are overcrowded, don't have nowhere to go, and the population has swelled up 17%. los angeles has swelled up 16%, and the police are getting infected by diseases that's supposed to have been way in the 1800's that's now populated because of the homeless. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. wright. any other public comment?

>> in conjunction with the increase in attorney employment with review and analysis of prior judicial determination and response to the changing legal environment, will you consider youth mental health counseling as an adjunct priority? i've spoken with several deportees abroad who have spent time in u.s. prison prior to deportation. these individuals shared a common story. they were a passenger in a vehicle, they were unaware that drugs were present. their charges in sentencing, simply explaining their circumstances took the edge off the conversation in each incident. i think psychological counseling or talk therapy for young people might save these cities significant funds and

direct these youth downed the correct track. a brief word on implicit bias. there's an interesting technique i discovered to ameliorate it. simply imagining the individual going about this lives on a daily basis, conscious psychological transposition or playing with metacognition. i've heard some of the material in socio linguistics as well as government funded texts on methamphetamine entitled the physiology of emotion. they dealt with the principal in this attribution of error

and psychological chemistry, so that's what i'm drawing on. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other public comment? seeing none, public comment is closed. [inaudible] >> chair fewer: sorry. i would like to make a motion to the full board meeting of july 16 with a positive recommendation. can i have a second? president yee, thank you very much. and drwe'll take that without objection. dr. kcolfax, thank you for beig in agreement with the recommendations. and mr. controller, will you note that it is the intent of this committee to accept the

proposals and report of the b.l.a. >> chair fewer: human services, would you come up? human services. so can we have a b.l.a. report, please. >> yes, you may. the department's proposed $1,039,024,619 for fiscal year 19-20 is 6.9% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $971,834,727. the department's proposed $1,062,899,769 budget for fiscal year 20-21 is $23,875,152,or 2.3% more than the mayor's proposed fiscal 19-20 budget of $1,039,024,617.

our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $1,977,272 in fiscal year 2019-20. of that recommended reductions, $333,219 are ongoing savings, and $1,064,033 are one time savings. this would allow a 6.7% increase in the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. my understanding is that we have full agreement with the department on our

recommendations. >> chair fewer: mr. rohrer, what do you say? >> trent rohrer, we are in full agreement. >> chair fewer: mr. controller, can you please note it is the intention of this committee to accept the agreements between the b.l.a. and this department. thank you very much. and i believe our sheriff is ready to come back. sheriff hennesey, and we wouldn't mind mr. hollings. >> crispin hollings. i'm glad to report we have agreed to cuts of $250,000 reduction to the budget.

>> i am proud to report that we are in agreement to the $250,000 cut to the service line. >> chair fewer: thank you. are we still in agreement with the positions, now? >> i believe this replaces the positions. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you for taking a second look at that. i greatly appreciate it. so mr. controller, can you please note it is the intention of this committee to accept the recommendations set forth in the agreements set forth between the b.l.a. and also this department. >> we will, madam clerk, and we understand this to be $250,000 in each of the two years of the budget. >> chair fewer: is that correct, mr. hollins? [inaudible] >> chair fewer: okay. and thank you very much. and thanks to the sheriff. thank you very much. all right. i am going to make a suggestion, that we will now break for lunch -- oh, can you come back?

yeah, you can. that we take a little break for lunch and also some bioneeds, and so i would ask that we reconvene this committee at 1:15 and i ask that we be prompt because we have several departments coming before us. i see we have several departments before us. chief, my apologies, but any way, i think we could all appreciate a little break. thank you very much. >> thank you very much.

welcome back. we're reconvening the budget and finance committee of june 20, 2019, and we are hearing the department budgets and next we have jeff gaziski, the homeless and supportive housing department. mr. b.l.a., can we have a report please. >> clerk: item number six to go with this item. >> supervisor fewer: please read item 6. >> clerk: the year 2019 life 2020, and 2020-2021 expenditure plan for the department of homelessness and supportive housing fund. >> so let's tackle item number six before the budget. mr. gazinsky would you like to address item number six. >> i'm have our director of finance and administration address the board on this

matter. >> thank you very much. >> thank you, members. it's required under the admin code for the board of supervisors to approve the expenditure plan for the homelessness and the supportive housing fund and this is revenue that we received from the human services agencies to support the clients on county assistance and permanent supportive housing. and the resolution before you supports 1,300 units and permanent supportive housing along with supportive services and money management services and the care fund is growing in the budget because the h.s.h. fund is getting a cost of doing business increase but as you can see about $1 million in discretionary general funding sources still go into this fund to support the total cost of the program. happy to answer any questions

that you may have. >> thank you very much. any comments or questions from my colleagues? mr. haney? >> thank you, chair fewer. and i can ask about general things? >> this is about item number 6. we are going to be discussing the budget after the committee takes a vote on this. okay, thank you very much. and seeing no comment from my colleagues let's open this up for public comment. mr. wright? >> that's pretty good, 1,300 permanent housing units. i hope that you're talking about the complexes and not navigation centers, because there's not enough to support all of the people of the homeless population of 8,011 people from the latest census count and here's an example where no one

has a place to go. after police moved their encampment. here's another example of the homeless count by the census bureau and as you can see it constantly increases. and it's up by 17%. and by the same response, here's another example on how after 60 days that the people who are in the navigation center get put back on the street and another example why i believe that we need permanent housing, period. instead of temporariness. and by the same response we had two hearings this week where the management and the upper level divisions made reference to the development agency and the rules and regulations that benefit the high income brackets but rules and regulation from the same book of law pertaining to low-income, they never incorporate. this one here report 15% is supposed to be low income and every apartment building that comes out of the mayor's office

on office, if it was supplied like it was supposed to at mission rock, 1,500 units and 225 of those units would be for very low and low-income bracket and moderate income bracket. people with the population out on the streets. and moreover there's a shortfall and you keep taking care of business like this. you're wasting money. you keep doing like you're doing and it's already been projected that you'll be 643.9 million-dollars in debt over a five-year period. and as a result my next demonstration, incorporate my 27-story twin towers to put the finishing touches -- >> i'm sorry, mr. wright, your time is up. thank you very much, any other members of the public. seeing none, public comment is closed and i move item 6 of the positive recommendation to the full board meeting of july 16th. and supervisor mandelman, seconded.

without objection. done. mr. b.l.a. now, please give us a report on the homelessness and supportive housing department. (please stand by).

all of which are one-time. we also have recommended reductions to the fiscal 2020-21 budget, all of those, $795,000 are one-time. the changes from the report that

was sent out on tuesday versus what has been revised, recommendation no. 2 has been reduced by $8,830 due to a clerical error, and recommendation no. 5 and recommendation no. 6 were originally not marked as one-time, and those should have been marked as one-time. that was a clerical error on our part. my understanding is that the department is with our recommendations. >> supervisors are in full agreement with the bla's recommendations. >> can you please note that it's the intent of this committee to set the agreements between the bla and the department. supervisor haney, did you have a question? >> supervisor haney: yes, supervisor fewer, a couple quick

questions. what is the support of housing and how we make sure that within the budget we're keeping the units affordable, especially for people that are living in sros? i often hear from my residents that -- from my constituents, that they are paying over 50% of their income in rent and some of the master lease sros. are you analyzing that, or are there ways that you're ensuring that we aren't basically taking all of the very little money that people have and sort of forcing them to not have funds for other basic necessities? >> well, some of the way that the supportive housing works was decided by the care not cash legislation, i believe proposition n, which has a different formula to calculate how much income people pay to rent. we did inherit some housing from the department of public health in which residents are paying 50% of their income to rent. we've been fixing that

incrementally. most recently swapping out funding using section 8 vouchers rather than local funding in which it's mandated by law tenants pay 30% of the income to rent, and all of the new housing we've brought onboard since we started as a department in 2016, tenants pay 30% of their income to rent, and that is our plans moving forward with new housing, that we remain at the 30% level. >> supervisor haney: and when you say we're fixing that incrementally, is there sort of a plan, or are there any investments in this budget, or how exactly are we dealing with the issue of the many people, i guess, in buildings that you've inherited and with the care not cash that are paying over 50%? >> the care not cash question, we would have to get that hsa to have that discussion about the formula around how rent operates

through the care funds. and that is approximately half of the units in which tenants are paying more than 30% of their income to rent. for the department of homelessness and supportive housing, the general fund units in which tenants pay more than 30% of their income to rent are approximately 1,000 units. in order to fix that, it would cost the city at least $4 million a year in general fund dollars moving forward, raising, you know, incrementally over time as costs go up. we don't currently -- we've been working with the housing authority, again, to swap out putting project-based vouchers into many of those units. however, as you know, the housing authority is currently not issuing any new vouchers, so at present moment, we don't have any plans during the next fiscal year to address this issue. again, moving forward, all new housing going forward, residents will be paying 30% of their income to rent. >> so there are about 1,000

paying over 50%, and when you say 4 million a year, that would be to bring all of those down to 30%? >> my apologies, supervisor. it's actually 2,000 units. yes, the cost would be 4 million for those units. those are just rough estimates. we can't always predict what people's income is going to be. >> supervisor haney: and the 2,000 units are -- what specifically, what category are those? >> those are permanent supportive housing units. they were formerly under dhp as the d.a. units and master lease units. we no longer use those designations as we look at the portfolio as one portfolio with approximately 7,700 units total. >> supervisor haney: and what are the subsidies that you have for families in your budget? you have family --

>> new subsidies? >> supervisor haney: yeah, new subsidies. >> one moment, please. so the increase in our budget in the coming fiscal year is $3.2 million in new rapid rehousing subsidies for families, as well as we have, i believe, 60 to 70 new units of family permanent supportive housing opening up in the next two years in the mayor's housing pipeline. some of that may be funded through the general fund or some of it may be funded through coc bonus projects, if we are able to get those. >> supervisor haney: for the subsidies, are these partial subsidies, or -- >> tenants pay 30% of their income to rent, so the subsidy amount is dependent on the tenant's income. >> supervisor haney: thank you. >> and i do not believe that there are any family units or

k-designated units in which households are paying 30% of their income to rent. this is primarily an issue in our single adults permanent supportive housing portfolio. >> supervisor haney: okay. all right. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: colleagues, any questions? so we are all in agreement? so we will tell the comptroller to reflect that in his calculations, and i think we will move on to the fire department. so thank you. chief nicholson? and we'll start with bla report. >> good afternoon.

>> supervisor fewer: we're going to start with this -- >> please. >> thank you. >> after you. >> okay. >> the department's proposed $424,000,000 is 6.7% more than the original budget of $397,824,807. the department's proposed $427,712,112 budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $3,373,807, or .8% more than the mayor's proposed budget of $424,338,305. our recommended reductions to

the proposed budget total $787,471 in fiscal year 2019-20. of the recommended reductions, $554,527 are ongoing savings, and $232,944 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of $25,716,027, or 6.5% of the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. in addition, analysts recommends reducing the 2019-20 carryover budget. finally, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended funds. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-21 total $583,624.

all of the $583,624 in recommended reductions are ongoing. these reductions would still allow an increase of $2,790,183, or .7% of the department's fiscal year 2020-2021 budget. i believe we have a few disagreements with the department, and i would just like to walk through those real quick. so let the department add any clarifying information, if there are additional disagreements, or if there is agreement with anything i say, but my understanding is that the department disagrees with recommendation no. 1, so the department is proposing five new fte ho captains. two captains are positioned proposed for the street intervention units. the street intervention units

focus on frequent utilizers of the system with prioritization of individuals experiencing homelessness in the tenderloin, south of market, and mission districts, and the engagement prioritization is to meet individuals on the street and the scene of 911 calls, as well as hospitals, sobering centers, and detox treatment institutions. what we're proposing and our recommendation is that those two positions that would be proposed for the street intervention unit be downward substituted to hoo3 paramedic positions. so the captain position, which is what is being proposed by the department, is considered a mid level management position and the ems class series. we believe this is too high of a classification for a street intervention paramedic position that primarily engages with individuals on the street. the paramedic position, which we are proposing, is -- provides

first responder medical care and is, we believe, the appropriate position to focus on frequent users of ems services, including engaging with individuals on the street, sobering centers, and other treatment centers, and responding to the scene of emergency calls. this recommendation, if you choose to accept it, would still allow for a significant increase in staffings at the department's community paramedicine section, including three new fte/ems captain positions to expand the ems 6 pilot program. the second recommendation that i believe we have disagreement on is recommendation no. 4, which is on page five of our report. here the department is putting a 0592 deputy director two. the department has stated that the responsibilities of the public relations manager

position have expanded to include coordinating and collaborating efforts with other city departments, including multiple executive directives and policy programs, both short and long-term projects. in addition to the existing 9251 public relations manager, we have noted that the department already has a full-time 0922 manager 1 that reports directly to the chief of the fire department, as well as onetime 1823 senior administrative analyst that works on strategic planning for the department. we believe the current classification of the 9251 public relations manager, together with these administrative and policy planning positions that the department already has is adequate to carry out these responsibilities, and that's why we're recommending against the upward substitution. the final recommendation, which we believe we have disagreement

on, is recommendation no. 5, which is on page six of our report. so here the department has proposed to create a new position of health and safety chiefs. so what they are proposing is to upwards substitute and unfilled h-40 battalion chief position to 1 h-51 assistant deputy chief, and this is -- what they are proposing is a sworn position with annual salary and fringe costs of more than $330,000. the position would manage department cancer prevention, peer support, and health-related policy development. the position's also proposed to manage the physician's office and peer support unit that is proposed to range from about four to six individuals. so what we've -- what we understand is the department currently has one full-time equivalent 2233 supervising physician specialist, and this individual reports to the deputy chief of administration and is

responsible for managing the physician's office, including overseeing one nurse practitioner. the job description for the 2233 supervising physician specialist, which the department already has, includes policy development and execution. in addition to that position, the department also has one full-time 1823 senior administrative analyst that works on strategic planning for the department. so while we are in complete support of the department's efforts in this area, we do not disagree on the importance of cancer prevention, peer support, and health-related policy department for the fire department. we believe that some of the proposed duties of the proposed health and safety chief, which they are proposing as a sworn position, fall under the responsibilities of an existing supervising physician specialist, which is a civilian position. the deputy chief of administration and the supervising physician specialist are the appropriate individuals

to develop health-related policies and they are appropriately would be assisted by the 1823 senior administrative analyst position for strategic planning. in addition, policy development and supervising two small units, we do not believe merits a high level full-time sworn position. thank you. >> supervisor fewer: chief nielsen, i see that we are in agreement on some things, and we are in disagreement of other things. shall we take first the em-6 captains? >> yes. good afternoon, chair fewer, supervisors. what we have offered back is to basically pay for the upgrade and the salary of those two h-3 positions to h-33s, as long as we have the positions, we will cover that, and i believe it's

$40,000. so we have been working with the budget analyst, and thank you all. we've been working diligently with them trying to get things squared away, and so that is one thing we've come to. we do, all those ems positions do the exact same scope of work, and so having -- also having two just paramedics as part of that program puts our pilot program with the state at great risk, because it mandates in that -- in that policy, that it be a paramedic supervisor. so we are happy to pay for it through attrition, but we really need those positions. >> supervisor fewer: that's great. thanks. it's great to hear that. you have a response. >> madam chair, so it's our understanding these two

positions, so the three -- is it three? three positions would be under that ems-6 pilot program that the chief just described. our understanding is that the two that we've called out and recommended that are in our recommendations are in the street intervention unit that do not rely on that -- those pilot funds and do not require those positions to be captains. >> supervisor fewer: is that correct, chief? >> no, and i'm going to have mark speak to that. >> good afternoon, supervisors. mark corso. these, all five positions, are intended to be under the same scope as ems-6 as approved by the state of california as far as our pilot program. so the intent is -- of this project, is to have a pool of personnel who can also interchange, but it's also under the scope of the ems-6 pilot program. >> supervisor fewer: what the bla might have been saying, in order to comply with this grant or the state of california or whatever the whole pilot

program, is you're only required to have three ems 6, and is that correct? >> i don't believe there's a minimum requirement. that's the standard. the pilot program we have currently, we're looking to expand. we know currently our issue is bandwidth from our resources that we have, and we're looking to add additional resources, not to change the scope of the program, but just to expand it. >> supervisor fewer: okay, thank you. and thank you for coming to sort of an agreement fiscally. thanks. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: maybe can you describe a bit about what these ems 6 captains do and why it's important they be captains? my understanding is they are the people who are sort of trying to reduce unnecessary 911 transport and that they are often sort of giving direction to other people who are responding to the scene about how to approach it, and that that, aside from the state

law requirements under this pilot, that that requires them to be captains, as well, or to have that level of authority. >> thank you, supervisor mandelman. yes, they deal with the most complicated cases on the street. the people with the most severe mental health issues, behavioral health issues, and physical issues, and they also have to direct other units from the fire department on scene, and be the clinical supervisor and they also -- they not only direct it, they make destination determinations, consult with senior base positions, and they recommend a course of action for -- with other city agencies for these individuals. and so our paramedics don't necessarily have that training, experience, and education to carry that out. so it's definitely a higher

level, and they also are part of sort of determining different policy, different work flow, and so that's definitely a supervisorial position. >> supervisor mandelman: are you -- so presumably part of the idea is this should be reducing costs or making the department's use of its emergency response more effective. so are you gathering data to see how the three ems 6 captains you have now, or the eight who you would have, are impacting departmental response and/or cost? >> yes. we are gathering data. right now, the ems 6 is only able to reach 13% of our frequent callers, frequent 911 callers, and i can give you anecdotal stories about sort of reducing one person that called

240 times one year, the next year we got him down to 18. there are those kind of anecdotal stories. i'll let mark speak to the data. >> yes, absolutely collecting data, working closely with department of health, department of homelessness, and to your point, that has a domino effect, too. by keeping the dependence on 911 lower, that lessens people in the emergency room, it lessens the -- increases the ability of our units, so we're looking at cost impacts not only for the department, but hopefully down the line for the rest of the city. >> supervisor mandelman: okay. thank you. >> president yee: i think -- this might not be a direct question to the chief, but if we were to accept the notion that we keep the position as-is, but to cut the funding, because

you'll be able to find funding from attrition, so that's good for next year, i guess. the question i have is how do you pay for it in it outgoing years? is it also through attrition or is it going to be more like we need more money to pay for this? >> so the hope is that we can reduce our 911 call volume, because these are the frequent callers, the people we most frequently transport to, unnecessarily so sometimes, to the hospital. so the hope is that's how we can save money in the future, and again, i don't have the data for that, the 13% that we're needing, but that's the hope, and can you speak to are we looking at attrition next year, as well, to cover this? >> i think we would be working with the mayor's office and also monitoring the results of this

program going forward. any other changes legislatively, but we'd be working within our budget to fund that difference. >> president yee: through the chair to either comptroller or bla, how does that work? i'm trying to get a handle on that. >> my initial understanding was that the department was offering sort of a one-for-one. so in the first year, the cost savings would be $40,216, and the second year would be $54,182. these are positions, so once they are on the books, they are an ongoing cost for the city. that's my understanding. >> president yee: which means that next year's budget would be, if nothing else changes, the only thing that changes is this attrition piece, does it change the budget at all? >> the only way it changes is by requiring a little bit aer attrition from the department. if you accept their proposal,

the positions as proposed would remain the same. their attrition line would just be a little bit bigger. >> president yee: okay. in other words -- >> supervisor yee: not just your department, but if they come up with upgrading other positions in which you disagree with, and they are going to use attrition again as a way to pay for it, they would probably have limited ability to do that? >> well, it would just mean they would have to somewhat delay maybe one or two more hires. i mean, in a department this size, very limited, but it would be an unknown impact on hiring, and so if there's turnover, they

might have to keep a position open longer, but given the department's history with salary savings, we don't believe that's an issue. >> supervisor yee: okay. thank you for that explanation. >> supervisor fewer: supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. i would like to ask why we would need these to be captains, and i see the need given the high level of dangerous work. so i think your proposal to absorb the cost sits well with me and i'm fine with that. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. so i'd like to ask, what is the cost difference between the captain and the paramedic. is it $20,000? >> $20,000 per year. thank you. okay, so i'm feeling general consensus around that one topic, so let's go on to your chief of staff. >> great.

>> supervisor fewer: i've seen that you have a proposal also about the chief of staff position. >> yes, we do. >> supervisor fewer: let's hear it. >> we would like to upgrade the position and absorb the cost of that upgrade, but i have placed additional responsibilities on this position, and some of the responsibilities that this position had were specific to the last administration in terms of what they saw their need as, and i see some different need. so -- but we are willing to absorb that cost. >> supervisor fewer: okay. president yee. oh, name off? okay. supervisor stefani. >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer, and again, thank you for willing to absorb the cost. i want to note you are a new chief, you are just coming into that position, and i know what that's like when i came to the county clerk's office and had a new budget i had to look at and had positions i wanted to change, i downgraded one and

upgraded some others to deal with what i thought was the best way to run the county clerk's office, so i respect that you look at this position in a way that involves a step up and the fact that you want to absorb it is great. and again, sits well with me and it's something i support. >> thank you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. i just wanted to also caution the fact that i'm glad that you are redesigning this position, quite frankly, because we have many governmental liaisons we meet with all the time, and they are not chiefs of staff. there's a different, i think, classification for work actually, so i'm glad you're able to absorb those, that financial cost, and your willingness to, i'm seeing general consensus here, so let's combo on to the nego on to the . you would like this to be an assistant chief making $350,000 a year supervising about four to

six people. is that correct? >> all told with salary and benefits, it's $330,000 a year. yes. may i speak to that? >> supervisor fewer: sure. >> okay, thank you. so this is something i feel passionately about, and i was really excited to be in here last week when i heard the comments from several of you in terms of your support of this position. and so what i can say is, number one, we have no real organizational changes within our staff for several decades, and this is a need i absolutely see and feel in my bones, and this is a new initiative for this department, and this individual is going to be responsible for creating policy and developing the initiative, and it needs to be someone who has the institutional and cultural knowledge. i hate to say it, but fire department's a little bit different, and i can sort of tell you a little bit why, from

personal stories. so many of you know i was involved in an arson fire in 2009, where i was the officer in charge, and six of us were burned. and i felt completely responsible, even though the arsonist was the one responsible, because one of my guys ended up in the icu for three weeks. i took that on, and there was really nobody i could go to other than coworkers, because i was at the level of a captain and our peer support unit is at the level of a firefighter, i could not really go to them, and i could not go to outside people. i could only talk to other fire department members and retired members. so there's that sort of institutional and cultural knowledge and need, and then if we go to the berkeley way fire, which happened back in 2011, where two firefighters died, the

incident commander of that -- of that fire, he felt responsible for that, as well, and there was -- he didn't feel comfortable going to anyone, and that can have an impact, an operational impact on our members, if he's not so sure of himself anymore, and so we really need this position to be a sworn uniformed position. we will not get the same -- first of all, this person -- we will not get the same sort of buy-in from our members. our members will not be really willing to go to -- they will not be looking up to a civilian to help them out, so we need an individual who's going to have buy-in and collaboration from our members and who can make real change culturally and behaviorally, and to me, that is

a sworn position. and so some of their jobs, right, they are going to oversee health and wellness, create policy, conduct safety investigations. a civilian cannot conduct a safety investigation of a fire that we go to. that's pretty impossible. they need to oversee our behavioral health unit, oversee our physician's office, assist members getting back to work. again, it's a trust factor with a sworn member. they are going to oversee the workers' comp carveout, where they are going to save a lot of money, and they need to do research for best practices to reduce exposure to our members. so in my bones i feel this, culturally and institutionally, we need them to have that cultural and institutional knowledge to make this program effective.

we've seen the impact that boston fire department, we often compare ourselves to boston, we're a similar size department, but we've seen the work that boston has done, and they've really reduced their workers' comp, they've made a lot of behavioral changes within their department, and are seeing an overall improvement in worker behavior and health. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. supervisor mandelman. >> supervisor mandelman: yeah, thank you, chief. i'm trying to wrap my brain around sort of -- i guess now that we're focused on it, exactly what this position will do, and it's helpful to have you sort of describe it. is it modelled on this boston -- there is a similar, identical position in boston? i guess my broader question is, is this sort of a proven best practice that exists in fire departments around the country?

and -- because the function that you initially described almost sounded like a counselor, which could be a much cheaper position. you're sort of describing a lot of different functions in one person. i'm curious how this is played out in other jurisdictions. >> i'm going to let the deputy chief speak to that. he's done a lot of research on this. >> good afternoon, supervisors. deputy chief, administration, so i looked into the boston unit. the boston unit is currently the forefront of the fire service of this. we would be the first one in the west coast to actually put something like this in their command. they have a deputy chief, battalion chief, captain, lieutenant, two civilians to improve the health of the members there, so this is what's coming in the fire service. this is what's in the forefront of