issues outlined in this resolution. >> any public speakers for this item? >> seeing none, actually very few members of the public in general. are there any comments from the board or superintendent? on mr. haney's resolution. >> maufas? >> so on your second, therefore, your second resolve it says we are going to provide copies of this, are you talking... and our senator. that is right. is that what you are talking about? >> and congress woman spere. >> clarification. >> excellent. >> any other questions or

comments? >> seeing none, roll call please? >> ly >> yes. >> fewer. >> yes. >> haney >> yes. >> maufas. >> yes. >> mendoza. >> yes. >> murase. >> yes. >> wynns. >> aye. >> norton. >> aye. >> seven ayes. >> i am sorry miss ly did you have a question? >> do you want to say something superintendent? >> i just wanted to congratulate our commissioner haney and the board. this speaks to the very heart of who we are in san francisco. and when the children walk through our doors we don't care what their immigration status is, we don't care where they come from or where they have been what we care is that they are going to graduate with options i want to thank you for putting the resolution forward.

this is something that we can all stand behind and what is cool about this is that we live every single day so thank you. >> could you just ask, could we put all of us put our names on it. >> absolutely. >> thank you for doing that. >> then we will move on to item s. board members reports. of >> commissioner will you give us a report?

>> comes on to our sight and have a uniform way to do that. and then we had a report from building and grounds and it was a report on the summer of 2013, facility and bond construction projects and there were a handful of summer projects that included things like moderizing tailor and some structural upgrades to marshal and flooring projects and electrical projects and drinking fountain and a variety of project and we also had a report on the green school yard construction that is going to be happening in 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6... ten of our school sites >> and it was just beautiful to see the work that has been organized for these ten sites that will be completed over the summer. >> thank you. commissioner mendoza.

>> commissioner wins wynns, but you sort of did give it from the budget committee. >> so i am going to skip you. >> thank you, president, i would like to take this as a personal point of privilege. in the audience today, we have miss margaret chiu who has been employed with our district for 20 years and we have been graced with her ability to help us supervisor our schools and also deliver excellent ininstruction to our children, she started out as a dedicated parent and very active parent in her public schools and worked her way up to a teacher and then associate superintendent. and so, she joins us tonight as her last board meeting as she retiring, so we wish you much, much happiness, good health and good luck in your retirement, thank you very much. on behalf of all of the san

francisco public schools. >> well said, we will miss you. >> any other announcements by board members committee, well, actually we don't have the committee dates for a month or so. >> maufas? >> i just wanted to remind the public that this weekend is san francisco pride. i am wearing my transmarch support shirt that i want to alert us to be careful and enjoy. and i will also be a safety monitor at pride because i think that is the way that i can do the best service and enjoy the parade and the festivities and do them safely. >> thank you. >> seeing no other announcements, we are now going to recess, this meeting and go into closed session, and then we will come back to open

session, and read out the results of it. >> and could i make one more announcement? >> so tomorrow, we are expecting the ruling on the same-sex marriage and doma and so there is a viewing at city hall at 7:00 a.m. in the rotuda with the mayor and nusome and as we anticipate the read out of the supreme court ruling on that case. doors open at 6:30 a.m. and then the announcement will happen at 7:00 a.m.. >> the board approved by a vote of five, aye and two absent to settle the amount up to the stipulate you lated amount. approved by a vote of six alicia wintersteins and one absent, haney the employment of

three assistant principal and one supervisor and one program administrator and two director and principal leadership support, and one director and one assistant superintendent. and now i am going to read the closed session action from the evening of june 25,. the public employment approved by the vote of 6 alicia wintersteins the approval of two director principal leadership support and one direct and her one

assistant superintendent. and now i am going to read the closed session actions from the evening of june 25, 2013, public employment, the board approved by a vote of six alicia winterstein and one absent fewer, the aemployment of three assistant principal and two supervisor and one executive director. and with that, i am going adjo

>> 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