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 matters are the matters of board of supervisors >> and to be calory on those

items we've done this last week there is no action on the committees behalf. >> colleagues any questions or comments. >> okay. thank you ms. howard. why don't we move on to our city attorney's office >> good morning naomi. i'd like to thank harry rose and this is for all the productive conversations we've had. i'm breaking out my budget we agree with the budget on operating budget with expectation of one is our medical examiner and reduction to the attrition in the medical examiner's office. there's a recommended kit by 82 though 8 hundred and 88 and

reducing the attrition by 80 notice o thousand in fiscal year 2014. the medical examiner is required by state law to investigate the cause of suspicious deaths. this supports the police department and the da and public defender's there need to be is proper staffing. over the last 5 years the medical examiner has afrmgd a deficit in salary costs. the deficit is slightly lower because of the delay between separation and the hiring has loefrd the salary costs.

but we're actively recruiting to fill the medical examiners positions and that's the national association of medical. we ask i regret those cuts to maintain a staff. as for the equipment that's open our list we're aware well, i think it was a policy decision before the board the vehicle replacements were part of our budget to replace those 12 years and older. we have to take take into consideration the maintenance and the fuel and economy of the vehicle. we're totally in support of those decisions. thank you and if you have any questions i'm here to answer >> ms. kelly the only conflict

between our office and the other office is regarding the medical examiner positions. >> that's correct. >> i see at least in the previous report about a half of year can you talk about the implementation if not funded. >> the implementations is really again we'll lose

>> we're going having a instant turnover. where you - >> we're in the interviewing process there's a small pool of forensic folks in the country so we're interviewing right now to hire in those position. we're in the h.r. process and we're working with the medical

examiner in other county >> to you're in the mid of hiring if this money were taken away? >> we wouldn't be able to fill those positions. >> i'm looking at the medical examiner positions there a total of 1 hundred and 75 thousand but it's critical for you and the city's law enforcement investigations to have those positions so i'd be strongly support of what you're saying about that. >> to the budget analysts office. mr. chairman from the doubt u budget analysts office. we just handed out a revise report so supervisor mar did have the reduction for this one area of disagreement. our revised report has 782

thousand and 58 saves for the salary and benefits but our rationale is the medical examiner as ms. kelly has indicated has a fairly high turnover. we did relook at that and reduced what we had originally anticipated going forward to give them back sufficient funding so they francisco increase the funding going forward. but imprisoning there are a number of vacancies and they're in the myth of hiring for multiple positions the reduction we have is only .6 of one position. so if you spread that out over several positions that are vacant if they're new positions

brought on in august, september, october this would then assume no further vasectomies or turnover but there are likely to be some so we thought that was a reasonable approach >> how much positions are we talking about here? >> i believe there's 3. we have 3 assistant medical examiners and then i'm looking we have 3 medical x arm folks >> this recommendation as i mentioned to you is the attrition savings where we're being extremely conservative in terms of what we're reducing. it was reduced by another 50

percent we're saying this money we're recommending we're providing on awe - this will more than provided the funds for all the needs of medical examiner >> thank you, mr. rose. >> and to be clear right now none of those positions have been filled. >> the work is still going on but we have to use temps but as soon as we fill the positions we can release the temps. we have to have the physical body doing the work >> but mr. chairman that's precisely our point. we understand this is needed work to be done but the

department can only spend the money as the positions are hired and even while those position are being hired based on the medical examiner attrition there's more turnover so that's why i see is to the board that our recommendation provides more than needed funds >> so the debate is about the new positions. >> it basically recommendation all positions supervisor farrell in terms of what we're trying to estimate we know what the turnover is year after year but we are projecting the whole budget for the department and we're looking at the mode it

remedies and we believe it will provide more than needed positions for all the medical examiners positions. >> yeah. i think it make sense but i'm using the june 20th budget analysts is there a new version that was distributed to our office. >> it was just distributed. >> and this replaces the entire thing. >> yes, it does supervisor avalos. >> so previously you were at. >> let me i will go over that with you. on the old report we had made to the recommendations for 13, fourteen of 708506 that becomes

422428 for 2014 arrest so for fourteen, 15 is now 46570 one >> okay colleagues any further comments. questions >> i have questions overall on city vehicles and i i know we've requested a budget analyst to do a report. we've had several departments to come before us dw being one of them. i wasn't sure the best approach to take do we have the global report over the whole city but we have them here now

>> mr. chairman and members of the committee. we first of all, it's my understanding that the city administrator concurs with our recommendation >> we don't see it as a recommendation. >> sorry about that. it certainly open for debate. i'd like ms. campbell to briefly give you an overview of that that and i want to add supervisors that we were e we believe our report as president chiu has requested an overall analysts of the budget. we believe that report about be issued probably late tonight or tomorrow morning. and it goods into debt about the

vehicles >> and it's confusing we're making decisions about vehicles in other departments so if you want to be careful about how you've made our recommendations it b will be important for us to know. >> actually a that's why i mentioned this reports. it will give you the overall - the committee can take whatever action it wants and can you please explain the context >> when we looked at it across the mayors proposed budget there's about $3 million in reduction and we want so say

there's opportunities for further reductions. our two major concerns with one is we're receiving a lot of requests for new - to replace vehicles would low mileage. i think that 50 percent of them have lower than 50 thousand miles and so the department is requesting to replace the years that are 12-year-old. so we didn't think it - the other really major certain we have and this is the city's baseline fleet is 19 hundred vehicles. right now the department and part of the ordinance is to reduce this by 20 percent of the cities fleet by 2015

>> out of the 19 hundred vehicles it's only 6 hundred and 20 vehicles are subject to the reduction. that's not how many vehicles are going to be reduced only 20 percent which is 1 hundred and thirty vehicles citywide. so i would certainly say the ordinance needs another look but $500,000 reduction. those are in all departments not a separate remedies >> that's correct. >> and for the overview your own u

in the base and their 13 hundred waivers pending. so the jaufdz basically after waivers is 6 hundred and 6780

vehicles which would require at the end of this fiscal year we reduce 50 vehicles and our expected vehicles by the end of this year is 99 so we'll exceed the number required by about 45 vehicles. for a couple of other items >> we have a number of vehicles that are - is vehicles have less than 50 thousand miles. not trying to find the exceptions but they were looking at russ the fleet. how can we justify retiring vehicles that have less than 50 thousand miles. we had the chief probation officer saying we can't use our

low c and g vehicles to go outside the city well, then don't think. you can work around it so the retirement vehicles still have a lot of life in them. >> i think there are some interesting questions you're raising supervisor avalos and it's something our office has pulls he would about. it is required we look at vehicles that are driven 26 thousand miles a year so if you're vehicle is 12 years old i think the questions that ms. kelly referred to related to the whether a vehicle is a hybrid or

not and it's not complicated. there's horrify remember we do have the ordinance as it stands the city replace or reduce the vehicles by 2015 so this is a two year plan to reduce the vehicles that is required and reducing the vehicles as well >> i want a little bit more clarity. why is there a high turnover >> the high turnover has been in this last year. it's due to personnel issues that have come up in this last year. over the last if you fiscal years we have over spent 90 in

our salaries by 08 and 09 we were over budgeted by 9 percent and in fiscal year 2013 we have been over budgeted. we're back filling with temps to keep our cases moving forward. >> so you anticipate if we accept the budget analysts recommendations do you anticipate come back to the board asking for more funds from this department. >> yes. >> i'd like to look at the ordinance and making changes to it in the future. i think the idea of replacing vehicles that are over

ms. kelly thought we'd made a recommendation on the policy we're recommending it be reduced. >> okay colleagues thank you, mr. rose. any questions? comments? >> i make a motion to accept is budget analysts recommendations with expectation of the american questions. >> any discussion on that item? >> can we do so without opposition. >> well actively i'd prefer to take the position for the attrition savings so let's do a roll call vote. >> okay. on that motion

(calling names) the motion passes. >> okay motion passes. thank you, ms. kelly. colleagues that's the ends of our list for today. mr. clerk any other items >> that completes the items those two items should be continued until wednesday, june 26th. so the items are move forward to june 26th. mr. clerk any other items? >> that completes the items. >> thank you. we are adjournedtest.

>> 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.