tv [untitled] November 12, 2011 9:30pm-10:00pm PST
that are shown, in table no. 2, page 6, that money would be real appropriated -- we appropriated for five projects shown in table 3 of the report. going to this new system program reserve fund, which she spoke to. -- which he spoke to. we had concerns that the fund would not have been subject to approval by the board of supervisors and under this proposed legislation, as stated, any expenditures on that fund would be subject to the approval of the board. we recommend that you approve this ordinance and the release of reserve funds. supervisor chu: let's openness
-- these two items up for public comment. any items -- any members of the public that wish to speak of items 3 and 4? >> good morning, supervisors. ♪ i would like to see water for free puc in an octopus' garden with electricity be would be warm in a power storm in a little octopus' darden beneath the the c p u c i would like to see more water for free puc in an octopus' garden under hsc ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that would wish to speak?
seeing no one, public comment is closed. i would like to thank the budget analyst for his recommendation, working through language that adequately allows for the department to be able to put away savings into a central reserve, rather than have it be a natural project, maintaining budget committee project oversight over how those allegations would come. i want to thank the budget analyst for actually working with us to make sure that that happened. we do have an amendment in full. colleagues, can it be taken without objection? done without objection. should the amendment be held? if not -- ok, the item does not represent a motion change. we have a motion by supervisor mirror real me to move the item as recommended to the board. without objection? item #4, requesting the
reserves based on their new milestone and mean that new money. colleagues, do we have a motion to release those reserve funds? we will do so without objection. thank you very much. item number five, please. >> item #5. resolution authorizing the general manager of the san francisco public utilities commission to execute the first amendment to the memorandum of understanding with the alameda county resource conservation district for an amount not to exceed $775,000 and with a total duration of fourteen years, pursuant to charter section 9.118. supervisor chu: we actually have a request from the department to continue this item so that they can work through mou. hopefully we can continue this item. are there any members of the public that wish to speak on item number five? the side of we will, hopefully,
be continuing with the additional opportunities for public comment. are there any members of the public that wish to speak, item number five? >> ♪ the 1% water, people who say water are the luckiest people in alameda county ♪ supervisor chu: thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on item number five? colleagues, can we take a motion to continue this to the call of the chair? we will do that, without objection. thank you. item no. 6. >> item #6. ordinance appropriating $3,370,001 of state revenue loss reserves and $78,826 of adult protective services federal match revenues to provide one- time bridge funding to adult day health centers, through the human services agency, in order to mitigate state cuts in fy2011-2012.
supervisor chu: thank you very much. i know that we have anne and sherry to speak on this item. before we do that, i know that supervisor kim is a co-sponsor of this item. would you like to say a few words before we begin? supervisor kim: yes. similar to the child care subsidies that we were talking about last week, about health care has received drastic cuts from the state as well. we were able to work with the department of aging to back up that loss. we know that our seniors continue to be in need. supervisor chu: thank you,
supervisors. >> presiding over the adult aging services committee of stairs, we are just very grateful that the board took this option. i wanted to give you a heads up. the funding goes to our department and then to the contract for the institute on aging. probably within the next 30 days or so. >> good morning. i am sorry to be laid. i am coming from another meeting in the mayor's office. you would like me to just -- supervisor chu: we had
originally expected a proposal. >> as you know, the governor and the state decided to eliminate adult care health centers across the state of california, taking it out of the plan for the state. it was approved by the federal government. 50% of the money was coming from the state. because they decided to take it out of the california plan, there is no longer access to the federal or state funds. for people in san francisco, it means a $10 billion loss. in san francisco, we have a very brief high acuity raid leaving
consumers in the lurch. primarily, with disclosure on december 1, we were concerned that there was no transition plan. that they would be in danger of being stuck at home, without adequate health care, transportation, or the importance of civilization that they would be getting. so, we are proposing to spend approximately $3.4 million to keep these services going while we figure out a transition plan. primarily, what we're doing is putting together an assessment team that would run through the funds. this is something that we have never done before in san francisco. people coming to the adult day health center, they get assessed if they qualify for adult day health.
hoping that some of the people could be going into alternative programs to care for the elderly and has a separate funding extremes. the other thing that we are hoping is that some of those folks will go into a dull day care, if they need, without a higher level provisions that they can switch into. programs that are actually lower cost. we are looking to put together an assessment team to assess the adult day health, moving into lower cost programs. keeping the adult day centers open, to try to work with that the state to figure out if there is a way to drive down the federal match and working with those health officials to pay for some of this.
we are asking for this to help us by some time. we realize that in seven months there will be a core group of people who need an analog to the service that we have. we have not had time to have adequate conversations about the health plan with the state and ask about what might be possible. supervisor chu: i know that one quick question i have is that the cut we are expecting in the local area is from capital and that local establishing funding. i wonder, if we were to allocate this $3.4 million, would we be able to receive any kind of federal matching? >> what the state did when they cut this, they cut it out of the health plan. likely not.
we are hoping that there are conversations going on at the state with another drawdown on the federal funds. these are folks who are eligible for services. certainly, they are eligible for health care and they are getting it in one place, of which you would think would be more expensive to get those in different ways. that is what we are going to be doing over the next few months. supervisor? supervisor mirkarimi: was a the state that initiated these cuts? it seems very drastic to me in the way that it denies us the federal match. the way that i interpreted how this came, it could have been executed in another manner. is that not correct? >> i would agree with that. supervisor mirkarimi: i have not
heard any analysis as to why the state did it this way. >> obviously, the state is looking for ways to cut services. particularly in southern california. there has been a lot of talk of fraud by an adult day health. we know that we have a very high acuity level and we believe that they really need those services. in other parts of the state, sometimes people have not felt that strongly about the need for this service. the state is also looking at ways to push metical's folks into managed care. that is something that we will see with a lot of services for the people that we serve. supervisor chu: but -- supervisor mirkarimi: the
population that benefits from these adult daycare centers in san francisco is what, approximately? >> between 1215 hundred right now. supervisor mirkarimi: per day? >> that is the total census. supervisor mirkarimi: it seems loath to leave. i have visited many. i am surprised. >> -- it seems to me. i have visited many. i am surprised. i noticed that some of the features of adult day care, there are people on staff, volunteers on staff, that actually help these seniors. people without the ability to help manage their own funds,
their own personal finances. without having to resort to a public guardian, this sort of service center seems like it really helps people maintain a certain level of independent lifestyle, if they need to. >> money management programs. right. bayview hunters point, and i think some of the others, have this. helping people to pay their bills. supervisor mirkarimi: i think it is an invaluable service. with the aging population of san francisco, this is a complete step in the wrong direction. i wholeheartedly support this move today. supervisor chu: thank you. another question. can you explain and break out the usage of the 3.4? >> sure.
basically, this is somewhat arbitrary, but we were looking at some of the senate bill totals for each year. so, rather than look at that cost, we are looking at bringing down the census a little bit. moving people to other programs. we look at things a few different ways. we realize that if we went too low, it would not take into account people that need to pay for facilities and staffing costs. we were looking at 75% as the overall cost. that is where most of the money would go. annualized, it would be about $1 million for center.
we are looking at seven months. that is -- sorry, i have it here -- that is the majority of the cost. we were looking at 300,000 of that analyzed for the assessment team. the way things work well, we have a community fund, moving people into a lot of different services. basically, they have the ability to assess an individual and of what they would need to live in the community. we would be adding staff to see if they can handle this extra population. it would be money for a successful social worker team. money for supervision. also, money for occupational
therapists. also, a position where we could do the writ -- initial screening in dos. every service that is coming through that intake, if they thought that people were appropriate for adult health care, they would move for a vigorous assessment. for that part, weekend time the study, which draws down about $78,000 from the federal government. supervisor chu: of the $3.3 million going to the community living fund, we talk about administrative purposes.
for the remaining balance, is the idea to spread that evenly amongst providers? or be more sensitive to the numbers served? >> it would be spread out, based on the numbers served. also, looking at each individual and their actual needs. particularly if there is a dual license to see if they can serve in another way. generally speaking, we would be spreading it out, taking into account that they have totally different populations at this point. children's family services, at this point, has two ships. taking all of that into account. supervisor chu: this is the same question that i had for the previous supplemental. the fact that we're using a
onetime state reserved. and what it is that we will be doing going forward with the state reversing their action. given that, this is a deliberate effort to take and evaluate each case for services elephant -- elsewhere, or if it could be accommodated by the programs we currently have in the city. we might still have a population of individuals that need these services and would not be accommodated by other services that we have currently. how do you see this going forward? >> we really are looking at this as a onetime solution. like has said, we are having this conversation on the health plan and in a preliminary sense they said they are interested in talking to us about looking at papers for managed care.
we are hoping that this is one time only, that we will have other solutions. but, there are no guarantees to that. supervisor chu: there was the 240 that was willing to be used on the administrative agency costs and 145,004 the administrative panel. are those also going to be lifetime costs? why would that be? >> we will still have the need to go through the system, they will still need to be assessed for the various programs that they do have.
we do not to the population, you know -- the population is not going to get any less. we will have services for people in the quality fund who could qualify for alzheimer's day care resource centers. supervisor chu: why don't we go to the budget analysts report? >> members of the committee, if the proposed supplemental appropriation is approved by the committee, the fund that you previously appropriated in the 11-12 budget, the city revenue loss fund, would be reduced by $3,700,001, there would be a balance left. we pointed out on page 5 of our
report in the supplemental that there is funding that is continued. the estimated annual cost would be $5,730,000. at the bottom of page 5 of the report, based on december 2014, if you approve the proposed supplemental appropriation, that would be about 2,824,000 below current state and federal funding levels of $5,833,000. supervisor chu: thank you. let's open this item for public comment. i have two cards.
>> thank you very much, supervisors. i am the associate executive director of jewish family children's services. we operate the high end adult family day care center that serves 250 frail, primarily modeling will speaking elderly in our city every year. -- modeling will -- mono bling will -- and will -- lingual speaking elderly and our city every year. the dramatic reduction in funding that we use -- that we receive, the population that
will serve, they are basically kept basically in the community because of the coordinated medical services under one roof. as in the that -- the other adult day care centers. social work, nursing care, occupational therapy, all in one place. truly, they are kept out of nursing homes. without this program, there really is -- there are no beds in the city to accommodate them. truly, we do not have enough alternative services to provide for their care. they're very appreciative of the possibility of this funding. if they could give us breathing room to enable us to maintain some of the services, while we
work with you and the state to put together alternative funding to keep this program going. thank you very much. supervisor chu: thank you. >> good morning, supervisors. i am the executive director for stepping stone. we administer four of the adult day care health centers in san francisco. as gayle mentioned, these services are critical for a frail population of seniors that are at risk of going into nursing. it would be designed to keep people in their homes, keep their independence, and it has worked very well. i would just like to underscore the consequences that we are looking at. when we discharge people into the community without adult day health, we serve almost 400
people per year. of those people, we are looking at about 75% in six months going into some kind of institutional care. that is a lot of people that are going to need hospitalization or skilled nursing. at a great cost to the city. one hospitalization is estimated at $9,600. that is one year of adult day health. so, you can quickly see the cost to the city, and the state, for discharging this many people so suddenly from a program that has allowed them to stay independent, living in the community, which is what we want as we age. thank you so much, a city of san francisco, for your commitment. thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next
speaker, please. >> goodman -- good morning. i am the executive director of the adult day services network of san francisco. those presented today are members of the network, the regional members back in the late 1980's, early 1990's, when it was the cutting edge trend to provide services for low-income seniors and adults with disabilities. as a collaborative for for all of these years, we have worked with the city's stakeholder partners who know our responsibility for help with this. we have identified other revenue streams and other ways to collaborate and preserve this model in the city. with behavioral health in mental health populations.
it gives us more time to do strategic planning for huge reliance on city funds. supervisor chu: thank you. supervisor mirkarimi: next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i am the executive director of the community living campaign. i want to thank you for your support and leadership on this issue. we want to thank you in advance, we hope, for your approval today, and your continuing compassionate care for our neighbors that are older and that risk, who want more than anything else to remain in their
own homes and neighborhoods. this is one of the critical pieces needed to provide. thank you so much. >> self-help for the elderly has been serving primary chinese speaking population for over seven years. we had a program that just guarded this year. we are petitioning to preserve this model on behalf of all of our participants. this bridge funding