>> good morning, everyone and welcome to the san francisco board of supervisors for june 24th. i'm mark farrell. i'm joined by supervisor and the vice chair and others. i'd like to thank the members of the sftv for according this as well as the clerk. mr. clerk any announcements >> yes, please silence all cell

phones and other documents. all documents shall be submitted to the clerk. all items will be on the agenda >> thank you, colleagues we have one item. and from the department of technology. so mr. clerk call item number one >> the ordinance to retroactively accept the grant from the national science of foundations and ordinance 9645 to accept the position at the department of technology and a okay good morning. i'm ken i'm representing the department of technology. the national science foundation

awarded to the san francisco the grant to cover the costs of mr. chris intergovernmental science technology office. the amendment provided that all direct costs including salary and fringe will be reimbursed and this is to accept this agreement in the expenditure of the funds >> colleagues any questions? and a okay. we don't have a budget analyst report so we'll move on to public comment. that i public comment? >> seeing none, public comment is closed. colleagues can i have a motion to move this item to full board >> okay without opposition.

mr. clerk call items 23 and 3 >> item number two the appropriation for all expenditures to the departments of city and county of san francisco as of may 31st for fiscal years 2014 and 15. >> item number 3 the salary owns for fiscal years june 2014 and 15. >> okay. thank you mr. clerk. >> colleagues we have the beginning of week two here and a number of departments first up our assessor report. >> we tampa last week and talked about where we plan to go. over the week

w d.

>> good morning todd director of the office of workforce have meant. we're in all the time with the budget analyst recommendations. i want to thank our cf o for working together over the past week >> okay. thank you. >> any questions. okay. can we go to the report and on page 12 our recommended rescues are together with the un - they total 55978 in n fourteen >> colleagues any questions for mr. rose? and a okay. thank you mr. rose. colleagues any other questions for the department

>> i'm sure they'll all go like this. colleagues can i have a motion >> so moved. >> okay. so moved. we have our planning department welcome back >> good morning john ram with the planning department. we are in agreement that there would be i think the number $360,000 in cuts. i also just wanted to mention the policy issue that was placed the budget analyst report. we're taking the steps to have you approve the numbers of positions that are not funded to allow the flexibility in the coming budget noois the money

does come in. it would allow us to hire people more quickly coming presumably if the funds don't come in. that is the intent of doing that it's our experience that the hiring can take 6 months that gets us favor behind >> any questions. >> mr. rose our report please. mr. chairman and members of the committee own page 20 our recommended reductions are 229 and in fourteen, 15 our recommend reductions are 369. >> any comments? >> yes mr. chairman and members of the committee on page 20 of the report - 23 of our report we

continue to make the same recommendations that the policy recommended we're have 9 new positions that are not funded. we consider that to be a policy decision and we recommended they be 10 year positions >> okay supervisor breed question? >> specifically for the amount that's recommended to reduce is not a part of the general funds enemy correct? >> you raised this question last week and mr. rosenfield is here to respond. the committee has already discussed those are general fund reductions >> thank you. >> supervisor breed this is really a choice for the committee to make.

of the $350,000 that has been requested. $240,000 can be taken as a general fund reduction. but the balance of those r is a choice to make the reduction in a way whether you take is in a reduction of the fee revenue and the savings wouldn't flowback through the general fund >> based upon this committees inquiry we strongly recommended i take it for a reduction. >> and i'd like to make a motion that we take it as a general fund reduction completely. >> okay. why don't we do that on the - actually let me ask mr. city

attorney i want to make sure we decide the policy can we talk about the oppositions. i assume we can approve those but can you clarify your recommendation >> my recommendation is that they - there's two things before you mr. chairman as i understand. one is our recommendations that are not a policy on page 20 and supervisor breed has made a further you amendment that be a general fund expect for the one half of fund. the policy recommendation on page 23 they are stating it's somewhat unusual for a department to request new positions where there's no money in the budget for them but the

department wants to expedite so when they're able to get the funds they can higher the positions right away. first of all, we're saying it's a policy that's up to you to decide whether you want to approve the recommendation but that you want to approve the positions we ask they be limited positions so we're saying for the term of respected project for example, if the project lasted for two years they should be limited for two years ago as opposed to creating new ongoing positions forever >> are all those positions project based? >> the way their currently proposed they're not limited tenure but we've hired i 15 people because of the economy and those are all limited

tenuous u you are i'm hoping those won't be. it's hard to define them as a project because they're working on the environmental reviews as part of the private projects come in the door >> but if you don't have limited tenure they'll be buried in the budget and we wouldn't call them out again basis the committee has approved them for permanent positions. >> i would say that two years gives us flexibility so long as it's notes 6 months. >> two years is fin. >> can i ask the department to talk about the safes inform the general fund or simply general fees and a thank you. in the decision we did with the budget analyst offices those are

fee reductions. there's a capture of policy issues. one it simply that the department is in the position now where the developers and fee pairs are paying for all activities save 10 percent. in past years it was thirty percent and there was about 70 percent of the departments budget that was being paid out of fees and it is in terms of our actual have meant preview. we've been reduced substantially they're paying for streetscape work and the park program. i think there's a serious policy issue whether that's appropriate. i know that community members are concerned about the

prospective that the developers are paying for all our with work. i will say that our general proposal is actually thirty percent loerp than last year's allocation. so we're taking a a bigger cut than the mayor's office has asked us but we want to justify the non project work we do >> supervisor breed. >> my thing is broken so i can't push in - but i want to know the problem with the - and a we're doing streetscape work like on third and there's a lot of other work that is not

directly - we don't charge a fee for and i think there's a prospective that the developers are paying for the projects but they're paying to review their projects. >> so i'm trying to understand i don't think i've gotten a clear answer to justify why this shouldn't come from the general fund allocation. what impacts it's not clear, you know, whether or not there would be, you know, a significant impact to our department if we choose to allow it to move forward as

. >> supervisor wiener. >> question for if we take this as general funds as a general fund savings does that have an impact on fees in the department. >> it will likely have an impact on fee not this year because our revenues are strong

but in a few years we'll have to increase the fees. >> we have not increased fees in four years. >> i understand and support the desire to take, you know, to try to take savings to the general fund so we can reallocate those funds to our prioritys but i don't think i'll be supporting the motion. >> okay. so we have two issues before us one the actual supervisor breed made a motion again, i appreciate the comments and more than anyone i appreciate the need in terms of general fund revenue here but i

krir with supervisor on this item. so why don't we have a vote on supervisors breeds motion to accept the budget analysts recommendations for the general fund >> on that motion (calling names) the motion passes. and on the policy matter in terms of hiring personally - mr. ram i appreciate our comments come back and having the tenure positions to two terms. i appreciate why you're doing this it is unusual but especially in the have meant world i understand the hiring

plans but if you come o come back next year we'll have scrutiny that these are passing. so can i have a limited term for two years >> okay. up next department of technology. mark welcome back >> good morning i'm mark director of the department of technology. first looked like to thank the analysts katie for a productive process with collaboration and i'm glad to say we're in agreement with the analysts this morning a >>

- pending budget details >> okay supervisor breed. >> i had a question about federal entrant i think we

received that has expired in terms of the support given to technology services at western edition beacon as well as a senior center near the 9-1-1 center. with your budget has there been any support allocated for those programs. they were funded by other sources by in your new you budget i cannot whether or not they've been planes to move those promises forward. >> are you refer to the b top grant on - on the general inclusion. >> excuse me. >> are you referring to the b top. >> i'm sorry i can't hear you. >> the b top grant is that?

>> was a grant i don't know the name i was wondering is there a backfill or will those programs continue. >> supervisor. the mayors budget does include ongoing funding for the programs at the seminar centers it was a little over $600,000. the city received a b top broad abandon opportunity grant from the federal government has part of the federal stimulus it was about a $9 million grant and it was to promote broad ban assess. it was for next two years,

however, the funding for youth programming was not included. thank you >> and is there a way with i don't know if this is something we can have or we can discuss here there's a recommend reduction is there a way to look at supporting back filling those programs. >> mr. rose. >> mr. chairman and members of the committee. as you know the committee if the committee wants to accept the recommendations and, reappropriate funds whatever is priorities are on the board >> okay. thank you. >> okay. any questions for mr. rose further questions for department? >> okay. thank you. colleagues can i have a motion for the department of technology

>> so move forward. >> okay movie right along we have the department of public works up next and a. >> good morning supervisors at our last meeting we did reach agreement with the budget analysts i think the outstanding question was the work that was provided the housing authority. can you refresh everyone's memory can you talk about your position and - >> it's a service that we provided the housing authority. it is a number of 6 apprentices who are being trained as laborers. they are just completed they're first year with a year and a half to go.

in addition there is a service that is department appraise the big 4 and the rest of the housing departments we help clean up e keep the vments clean on the weekend >> mr. rose. >> good morning. i'm from the budget analysts office. this remedies is based on on the recent recommendation it is about trash pickup on the weekends. our recommendation t is the housing authority francisco go through the union and not pay the overhead. we made it in the 7 year of the budget because of the sixth transitions and might not be able to implement the program at this time >> supervisor breed. >> thank you. i actually am

not necessarily comfortable with facilitating this program under the direction of the housing authority. i think we should provided support for the no objection two years and loss the housing authority to get up up and running after the two year budget cycle and a thank you, colleagues. i know there is coming through from the police department so i appreciate your comments. i would support in as well. i've talked with the labor folks and they're happy >> colleagues any other questions or comments. you appreciate the comments. mr. city attorney we've had a

motion in terms of the budgetary items so we

. okay. up next, we have kate howard back things were a trust matter for

the board to review. we have the specific funding remedies that are proposed by the programs that are listed there which total $886,000 they are so specific allocations is discretionary such that the specific