Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Privatization Contracting topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Budget committee tables several privatization measures after controller proposes lower-cost in-house alternatives
Summary
The Budget & Finance Committee on a recessed session tabled multiple resolutions that would have outsourced city services after Controller Ben Rosenfield presented in-house staffing alternatives that could reduce costs, including an estimated $2.1 million six-month saving for hospital/clinic security.
The Budget & Finance Committee recessed from an earlier meeting and on Thursday tabled several items that would have authorized contracting city services after staff presented alternative in‑house approaches.
Controller Ben Rosenfield told the committee he and staff had developed alternate staffing models that would avoid full privatization while still achieving savings. For security at San Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda and city clinics, he recommended a mix of institutional police and a security‑guard classification that he said ‘‘would generate approximately $2,100,000 in savings for the 6 month period, versus an outright rejection of the proposition J’’ proposal.
Supervisor John Avalos, the committee chair, said the committee would first table the ordinances and then consider specific budget amendments to reflect the controller’s staffing proposals. The clerk had called Items 4, 5 and 7—resolutions concurring with controller certifications that janitorial, body‑removal and juvenile food services can be performed by private contractors at lower cost—but Rosenfield’s presentation offered a different path.
A motion to table those items was moved by Supervisor MacCarrini and seconded by Supervisor David Campos; a roll call recorded four ayes and one no (Supervisor Ellsbourne), and the motion passed. Item 10, a separate resolution about security services at public‑health facilities, was also tabled without objection.
The committee did not adopt any contracting changes at the session; members directed staff to return with the specific budget amendments needed to implement the controller’s alternatives if the committee elects to reject the Prop J contracting language and pursue in‑house staffing changes instead. Chair Avalos said staff would advise the committee ‘‘of that at that time’’ when formal budget actions are taken.
Next steps: the items were tabled for further staff work and final budget action later in the evening, when the committee expected to finish its budget deliberations and forward measures to the full Board of Supervisors.
