>> president yee: good morning. we have a special treat for you

guys today. this -- i'm going to welcome you not to the budget committee, but the budget committee will just follow this special meeting very shortly, so i want to say that welcome to the june 20, 2019 special meeting of the san francisco board of supervisors. madam clerk, can you please call the roll. [roll call] >> president yee: thank you. ladies and gentlemen, since this is considered a board meeting, a full board meeting, i would like you to please join

me in the pledge of allegiance. [pledge of allegiance] >> president yee: okay. on behalf of the board, i would like to acknowledge the staff at sfgtv, lorenzo bryant and colin cooley, who record each of the proceedings and make the transcripts available on-line. >> president yee: madam clerk, colleagues, can i have a motion to excuse the five members that are not here? do i have to name the five

members? >> clerk: yes. >> president yee: can you please name the five members? >> clerk: that would be mar, peskin, ronen, walton, and safai. >> president yee: okay. can we take that without objection? okay. madam clerk, can you please call items 1 and 2. [agenda item read] [agenda item read]. >> president yee: okay. colleagues, these are -- these two items are pretty similar to the ones that we passed at our board meeting on tuesday. there were about 29-ish, 29 to 27 of them, so this is a

continuing of those many, many items in which the h.r. did a fantastic job working with our labor leaders in coming to these m.o.u.s. so colleagues, are there any comments or questions or anything? seeing none, then i believe i should be taking public comments on these two items -- no public comments on these two items, which is fantastic. without objection, then -- madam clerk -- >> clerk: would you like to take roll? >> president yee: do i need a motion? >> clerk: just roll call. >> president yee: how simple. just a roll call. >> clerk: on item 1 -- [roll call] >> clerk: there are six ayes. >> president yee: these pass on

first reading. madam clerk, is there any other business before us today? >> clerk: we do need to take general public comment. >> president yee: okay. are there any general public comments at this point? seeing none, public comment is now closed. madam clerk, are there any other business? >> clerk: that concludes the business of the board today. >> president yee: okay. and colleagues, this brings us to the end of our agenda. madam clerk -- we just asked that, so this special board meeting is now adjourned. it's back to you.

>> chair fewer: good morning, everyone. the meeting will come to order. this is the june 20, 2019 special meeting of the budget and finance committee. i am sandra lee fewer, chair of the budget and finance committee. i am joined by supervisors stefani, mandelman, ronen, and yee. madam clerk, do you have any announcements? [agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you, madam clerk. i'd just like to say welcome, everybody, to the chambers and good morning and with the comto the budget and -- welcome to

the budget and finance committee. we are on day two of our departmental presentations to hear the budget and legislative analyst's. i also want to start our opening by saying that i recognize that this process of deciding the process can sometimes be adversarial. i was just speaking to supervisor mandelman. my whole family had been public servants, and i honor all of us who have been public servants. so i know when we have disagreements about budgets, we are not doing it for personal gain, we are doing it because we think we can best serve the public in this way.

on behalf of all the san franciscans, i want to say thank you for serving us. i know many of you could get jobs in the private sector, that you could make a lot more money and actually have a lot less headaches, but this work of public service is so profound, it is so important, that we have public servants like you that come here into the court -- i mean, to this chamber today, and for all the work you do every day, and you actually serve the people of san francisco. i think there is no greater honor, but there's also no greater responsibility, so i want to thank you all. i think, also, that the committee that is here, the five of us here are to ensure that the public dollars are being spent in the most effective way. we are the last fire wall between the taxpayer and city government. it is our responsibility as we sit here to represent all hard working san franciscans that our taxes go to to fund the services of this city.

and so we hope to do them honor, too, today. and i would say to my colleagues that if you don't approach this job with a little bit of anxiety and a little bit of fear, i'd say you're not doing your job right. so first, a word of thanks to all the public servants and then, a word of thanks to all the supervisors on this committee, that they do the job of representing all the people that pay taxes. thank you very much. so saying that, madam clerk, can you please call item 2.

[agenda item read]. >> chair fewer: thank you. can i please have the department of children, youth, and families come up and present, please. mr. b.l.a., could i please have a report. >> good morning, chair fewer, members of the committee. dan gonchar with the budget and legislative analyst's office. the department of children and families proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-20 is $51,441,390 or 21% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $244,577,346.

the department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $17,938,967 or 6.7% less than the mayor's proposed budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $150,000 in fiscal year 19-20. of the $150,000 in recommended reductions, 20,000 are ongoing savings, and $130,000 are one-time savings. in addition, we recommend closing out prior yearen expended encumbrances of

$21,643 for total savings of $211,643. our recommended reductions for the ongoing year is $20,000. my understanding is we do have full agreement from the department. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, and let's hear from dcof. >> hi. my name is leo, and i'm really pleased to present the department today. maria chiu is sorry, but she had an emergency today. much thanks to dan and all of you on the board, and the mayor's and the controller's office. >> chair fewer: thank you. controller's office, will you please note that it is the intent of the committee to

agree to the reductions in the budget. now, let's have the retirement board -- or retirement system. so sorry. mr. b.l.a., could we hear a report, please. >> dthe department's proposed $35,699,533 budget is 9.8% more than the 2018-19 budget. the departments budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is

$1,125,132 or 3.2% more than the mayor's 2019-20 budget of $36,467,165. our recommended reductions for the proposed budget total $522,894 in fiscal year 2019-20. of that in recommended reductions, $48,282 are ongoing savings, and $474,612 are one-time savings. these reductions would still allow a reduction of 8.1% of the department's fiscal 19-20 budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 toting $5,602. of that, all are ongoing saving. this would still allow an increase of 3.2% of the department's fiscal year

2020-21 budget. my understanding is that we do have full agreement with the department. >> supervisor fewer: thank you very much. mr. huish. >> good morning, supervisors. and i, too, would like to thank the chair for acknowledgement of public service and the work that we do. >> chair fewer: thank you. >> the department can accept the budget analyst recommendations. a little bit different than agreeing with it, but certainly, we can live with that. >> chair fewer: we can take that. >> teacher: -- >> it's a distinction without any substance, but i want to thank the b.l.a. representative, monica, and certainly this committee for your thoughtful consideration of our budget. >> chair fewer: thank you. mr. controller, can you please note that it is the intention of this committee to accept the recommendations agreement from this department. thank you very much. let's have the department of emergency management now.

could we hear the b.l.a. report, please. >> department's proposed $96,431,631 budget for fiscal year 19-20 is $1,183,266 or 1.2% more than the original fiscal year 2018-19 budget of $95,248,365. the departments proposed $97,144,983 budget for fiscal year 2020-21 is $713,352 or 0.7% more than the mayor's proposed fiscal year 19-20 budget of $96,431,631. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $150,926 in fiscal year

2019-20. of that, $107,920 are ongoing savings, and $43,006 are one time savings. this would still allow an increase of 1.1% of the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. in addition, we recommend closing out prior year unexpended unexpended encumbrances of $54.96. and my understanding is that we do have full agreement with the department. >> chair fewer: and i believe

we have ms. mary ellen carroll here. >> yes. mary ellen carroll, department of emergency management. as you know, i was appointed in august. this is my first go round, and it wasn't too painful. i want to thank everyone from the board, the budget legislative analyst, and everyone on my staff who got us through this. we are in agreement, and thank you for having us. >> chair fewer: thank you for your service. and not everyone is on elder sf, they should get on it right now. >> thank you so much. >> chair fewer: mr. controller, could you note it is the intention of this committee to accept the recommendations from this department. now could we hear from the department of accountability. do we please have a -- could we please have a b.l.a. report. >> the department's proposed

$11,409,,000 for fiscal year 19-20 is 36.3% more than the original 18-19 budget of $8,363,576. the department's proposed $11,625,046 for fiscal year 20-21 is 2.2% more than the mayor's original 2019 budget of $11,400,009. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $297,851 in fiscal year 2019-20, all of which are one-time savings. this would still allow an increase of 32.7% in the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. we do not have any recommended reductions to the fiscal year 20-21 budget. our understanding is we have

full agreement with the department. >> chair fewer: mr. henderson? >> i, too, am a fairly new department head. i want to thank the budget team for a lot of work in getting us prepared and ready, and we are in agreement with the recommendation. >> chair fewer: thank you, mr. henderson. mr. controller, can you please note that it is the intent of this committee to set the recommendations from the budget legislative analyst and this department. thank you, director henderson. good luck with the rest of the job and thanks for taking on this responsibility. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: okay. let's hear from the superior court. could we have the b.l.a. report, please. >> the department's proposed $34,614,412 budget for fiscal year 2019-20 is $250,985 or .7%

more than the fiscal year 2018-19 of $34,363,427. the department's proposed 34,934,097 budget for fiscal year $20-21319,685 or .9% more than the mayor's proposed fiscal year budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $20,000 in fiscal year 2019-20. of those reductions, they're all ongoing savings. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget for fiscal year 20-21 total $20,000. all of the $20,000 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. this would still allow an

increase of .9% in the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget. our understanding is we have full agreement with the department. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. ewen? >> we are accepting of the cut. we're mindful of the cut that we are still seeking additional funding to bring compensation rates up to a more competitive level. that being said, though, this reduction is only 0.3% of a reduction, and we are quite accepting of it. >> chair fewer: and we are quite aware of your work. mr. controller, can you please note it is the intention of this committee to accept the recommendations from this department. thank you very much -- yes, i'm sorry. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: just a quick comment. i want to thank the chair for proposing that request in your proposed citywide add backs.

>> thank you. >> chair fewer: thank you very much for your service. let's have adult probation -- oh, president yee. my apologies. >> president yee: so some of the increase is due to the indigent defendant program. why isn't the superior court taki taking care of this and not having the public defender's be part of that budget? >> so supervisor yee, this was a structure put in place several years ago, and probably that was put in place is in situations where there is an ethical conflict of interest, you want to have that separation. so the separation of removing these cases completely from the public defender's office makes for a clean break to eliminate

even the appearance of a conflict of interest. >> president yee: and who determines that it would be a conflict of interest. >> the public defender declares a conflict. >> president yee: so they would claim it and these independent attorneys would step? >> that's correct. so at the particular court hearing, the public defender, if he has a conflict, would declare it, and at that point, the court would appoint one of the private attorneys from this panel. >> president yee: and i guess help me a little bit -- or i could ask the public defender's office. but once they claim that they are in conflict, how would that piece of the indigent program were to come out of their

budget? i don't see the conflict. >> so in that situation, the funds would reside in the public defender's budget. so you would have a situation where the entity that's declaring a conflict -- in this case, this hypothetical, the public defender also carries the funding for outside counsel to represent the defendant -- at least the appearance of a conflict is present in that particular situation. >> president yee: okay. well i'll probably ask the same question of the public defender. the money and the money, and they're independent public attorneys. since it's determined by the public defender's office that there's a conflict, then, it seems that they're saying that it's best that we have somebody outside of our office represent this. and part of it is like, well,

if you're pay -- well, if we're paying the public defender's to defend -- if there weren't any conflict, they would have to do all the cases. so my question becomes -- and it's more of a public defender's question, probably. why are we paying additional funding or giving additional funding for something that we're giving the public defender's office to do. >> well, i can answer that, too, president yee. in our system of justice, you want to make sure that the attorney representing you has no conflict of interest, and that's actually something that's in the ethics of practicing attorneys. that's the only way you can have an effective representation in a situation where that conflict exists, and that's -- that's -- it's a guarantee for all people.

you don't want the office representing two people who are accused of the same crime. >> president yee: okay. thank you. >> chair fewer: supervisor stefani in stefani? >> supervisor stefani: yeah. i just wanted to follow up on president yee's question. it's not the public defender's making the ethics decision. if two defendants are charged with the same crime, they're going to need two different attorneys in the conflict. i understand that. having been there before, it's just a matter of how our ethics laws of making sure people are represented fully without any conflicts. so i don't know if that's helpful, president yee, but i think your explanation explained it.

>> yes. thank you, supervisor. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. any other comments of my colleagues? okay. seeing none, thank you, mr. ewen. okay. i know i just called adult probation, but i'd like to call the district attorney first. is he in the room? oh, please come on up, if you don't mind. could we have a b.l.a. report, please. >> the department's proposed $73,731,299 budget for fiscal year 2019-20 is $5,286,987 or 7.7% more than the original year fiscal 2018-19 budget. the department's proposed $74,411,437 budget for fiscal year 20-21 is $680,130 or .9%

more than the mayor's office proposed fiscal year budget. our recommended reduction does to the proposed budget total $144,542 in fiscal year 2019-20. of the $144,542 in recommended reductions, 26,# $87 are ongoing savings, and $117,555 are one-time savings. these would still allow an increase of $5,142,445 or 7.5% of the department's fiscal year 2019 budget. our recommended reductions to the fiscal year 20-21 budget total $28,091. all of the $28,091 are ongoing savings. these reductions would still allow an increase of .9% of the department aways fiscal year

20-21 budget. my understanding is we have full agreement with the department on our recommendations. >> chair fewer: mr. district attorney? >> good morning, madam chair and the committee members. thank you for the process and for your consideration. we are in full agreement. i also want to thank the mayor's office and the budget analyst for all the work they've done, and here to answer any questions you may have. >> chair fewer: thank you, sir, and thank you for your service. mr. wicontroller, can you plea note it is the intention of this committee to accept the recommendations of the b.l.a. and also this department. thank you very much. any questions for our district attorney? seeing none, thank you very much. >> thank you very much. >> chair fewer: thanks for joining us today. >> thank you. >> chair fewer: now i'd like to call d.b.i. could i have a b.l.a. report, please. >> department's proposed

$96,127,047 budget for 19-20 is 25.1% more than original budget. the mayor's proposed budget is 8.3% less than the mayor's proposed budget. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $715,859, of that, $18,607 are ongoing savings, and this would still allow an increase of 24.2% of the department's fiscal year 2019-20 budget.

our recommended reductions for fiscal year 20-21 to the proposed budget total $19,445. all of the $19,445 in recommended reductions are ongoing savings. our understanding is that we are in full agreement with the department on our recommendations. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. mr. hui? >> good morning. tom hui. director of department of building inspection. we -- our department agree with the budget analyst, and then, we are ready to answer any question you have. >> chair fewer: okay. you're in agreement? >> yeah. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. hui. okay. mr. controller, please note it is the intention of this committee to accept the agreement between the b.l.a. and this department. okay. let's have adult probation up.

could we have a b.l.a. report, please. >> chair fewer, members of the committee, as you may have noticed, we passed out a revised report on adult probation, and i will be reading from that. so the department's proposed budget for fiscal year 2019-20 is $1,900,346 or 4.7% more than

the original fiscal 18-19 budg budget. this is $1,255,899 or 3% more than the mayor's proposed budget of $42,304,366. our recommended reductions to the proposed budget total $476,900. of those, $375,000 are ongoing savings, and 109,900 are

one-time savings. department's -- sorry. our recommended reductions to the proposed fiscal year 20-21 budget total $318,600. of the $318,600 in recommended reductions, $346,000 are ongoing savings, and we have an addition of $28,200 in one-time funds. these reductions would still allow an increase of $937,299 or 2.22% in the department's fiscal year 20-21 budget. regarding the changes between the original and the proposed, in the original list of recommendations, we had a recommendation to disapprove an upward substitution, and that was based, i think, on a

technical error in the proposed budget, so we removed that. otherwise, the report is unchanged. my understanding is that we have full agreement with the department on the revised report recommendations. >> chair fewer: oh, yes. hello. how are you, miss fletcher? >> good. karen fletcher, chief probation officer. so we have reached agreement with the b.l.a. with the exception of one item. that is for the purchase of a new vehicle, and our gun relinquishment unit, and i would be happy to answer any questions. >> chair fewer: i have a few questions on that. so how much is that amount? >> $53,700. >> chair fewer: for one car? >> that was for an s.u.v., and outfitted for what the fleet provides. >> chair fewer: and how would that car be used? >> so currently, we have to

have our probation officers qualify at a range quarterly, and that's by statute. so currently, we have 92 officers that have to go to the range on a quarterly basis, and that's 36 days. we have to transport anywhere from 7,000 to 12,000 rounds of ammunition for each of those training days. in addition to five shotguns and five rifles which are required by p.o.s.t., and additional equipment. currently, our range master uses his own personal truck to are not port these -- transport these items because we do not have a vehicle that is appropriately sized for him to do that. it is not appropriate for him to continuing to do that but he has volunteered for the last

couple of years. so we are asking for a vehicle that is right sized just to be able to accomplish the transport purposes so we can get folks trained. b.l.a.s suggestion in our negotiations was to divide up those materials among two or three vehicles to get them to fit, but that will require additional staffing to arrive at the department here in san francisco by 5:30, load those, drive them to san mateo or any other facility. sometimes we have to go to san quentin, san mateo. >> chair fewer: how often do you transport those? >> so currently, we do 36 days of training at the range. in addition, we do additional trainings for the firearms instructors, and so those result in additional days. >> chair fewer: and how much is that a year? >> you know, i don't have that, but every officer is mandated to have a minimum of 40 hours

of training, but our firearm training is more robust. >> chair fewer: what you're saying is we need an s.u.v. that is almost $54,000 to purchase to use 36 days to transport equipment. so out of 365 days a year, i feel it's not that strong of an argument because you already have 21 cars in your fleet, and that i would realize that it would take maybe two trips, but if you're only doing this 36 times -- days a year, and if it's for a duration of 36 days, i just don't see the justification. however, mr. b.l.a., do you have a response at all to this? >> yes. so we discussed this with the chief, and it's our understanding that there are 17 vehicles currently used by the department to collect weapons and other items from parolees on any given day. all of these vehicles are in use. but we did a sample of the 17

vehicles for april and may of this year, and found that on most days, two out of those three vehicles -- and we just looked at three out of the 17 that they transport weapons and ammunition were unused. so because we believe that the department is underutilizing their fleet, we do not believe that this request is justified. >> chair fewer: thank you. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm maybe just not making a connection. it seems like director fletcher is talking about -- and i don't know whether it's -- whether you need a $53,000 vehicle to use 35 times a year, but it sounds like you're talking about different uses of the vehicle. so how -- how does the underuse of existing vehicle -- are you saying there are vehicles, then, available to -- >> they have 17 vehicles that they currently to collect other

items and parolees, so they are currently able to store ammunition in the vehicles. many of them are sitting in the lot, not being driven on any given day, so we believe they could utilize any existing vehicles. >> supervisor mandelman: although they're probably a lot smaller than the giant s.u.v. that would carry everything down there. >> that is correct. and in addition to the size, when we are going out to a residence, and we have to gain property from them, we're not taking 12,000 rounds from a home, and that's what we need to transport for these trainings, and the 36 days is just the minimum of range days that are required. that doesn't count all of the other training where we transport mats and all of that. so that's why we're requesting the car. in addition to the training, last year, the board was generous enough to fund positions for our gun relinquishment as a result of proposition 63. no vehicle was attached to that, so those five sworn staff

frequently go to the jail because they're under timelines to be able to complete the paperwork for the court prior to sentencing. so going out so san bruno, and securing the weapon, we would need the vehicle to do that, as well. >> chair fewer: and miss fletcher, i said 2017. i stand corrected. so committee, i want to say i am leaning to take the recommendations from the b.l.a., and i tend to take the recommendations from the b.l.a. because they have done such extensive work on this. i feel as though this is in a gray area a little bit of a policy, too. for example, the equipment that is moved, the idea that he's using his personal vehicle --

and i think it's expensive. i have never owned a vehicle that's that expensive. i have a 2009 vehicle that i own. i think it's overly expensive, but i'm happy to have a conversation with my colleagues on the board what they're feeling about this. president yee? >> president yee: i think i listened to the arguments, and i'm not sure i'm convinced that the adult probation really needs this extra vehicle. and again, i -- i'm having a hard time hearing, too. maybe it's because you're not on the mic close enough. is this vehicle similar to the 17 that you have or is it something different about it? >> thank you. it is something different. we don't have something that

size. that's why he uses his personal truck because we can't fit the equipment to transport. if we were to stop using his personal car, which i truly believe that is the right thing to do, we would have to require two or three cars and staff and pay them on an ongoing basis if they're willing to do that. currently, our fleet is mostly caprices, which is a pretty midsize sedan. six of them are caged cars, so it would be almost impossible to put the crates in the back seat, and in addition, one is a prix prius, and we're not going to fit much in there. >> president yee: and is this a car or a passenger truck. >> oh, the one we're requesting? >> president yee: yes. >> it's an s.u.v.

and so because it's a safety vehicle, all of the equipment has to be stored in it by law. >> president yee: without knowing the capacity size from the b.l.a. office, do you know if you -- did you do any analysis whether it takes two or three cars to carry the same load as this new vehicle? >> it is our understanding that it would take more than one vehicle, probably two vehicles to transport the weapons and ammunition. however, given the underutilization of the vehicles they already have -- the 17 vehicles i think are just the ones they use to

transport weapons and ammunition for other purposes. we feel that they could better utilize the resources that we already have. >> president yee: and my question becomes were you able to do some analysis for the costs of -- i don't know how many times they do this, but if they do this once a month, probably doesn't just but if they're doing it frequently enough, and they need to have additional staffing to drive the second or third vehicle, did you do that analysis? >> we don't have any information to be able to do what the department is telling us based on what they're telling us based on how much time it would take to use more than one vehicle. we simply were looking at how many vehicles did they have, and the availability of those vehicles. >> president yee: that's fair enough. i'm just asking if you did it or not. >> sure. sure. >> president yee: then how often would you need this large vehicle? >> so at minimum, the range days are 36 days a year to travel with all of this equipment. in addition to that, we take mats and much of the other equipment absent the ammunition on far more days a year, and i

don't have the exact number with me -- >> president yee: and you would need to -- and i guess this vehicle goes somewhere with the training, and the driver would need to stick around with the vehicle or they leave and pick it up later. >> no, it is our range master who has been providing the vehicle, so he stays -- >> president yee: if you need a second driver, would that second driver of the smaller vehicle need to stay there for the whole time? >> typically, if they're handling our firearms, they're going to be one of our firearms instructors. >> president yee: and why would you have to pay them time and a half versus regular time? >> so these fire instructors, once they're training, they would be there for eight hours.

they would have to load the car, drive to san mateo, conduct the class, and then drive back and unload the cars. >> president yee: and i don't know if we could do the math, but can you just give me a ballpark of how much an hour of how much these officers make? >> yeah. certainly over $100,000 a year. >> president yee: about 50? 60? >> you know, i don't have that off the cuff. supervising probation officer.

so is it fair if the costs, if somebody's doing the math, this cost is about $20,000 a year? so is it fair to say it's about $20,000 i'll do the math -- i did the math. it's 20,000 a year, okay? >> if it's one additional staff, and if it's two -- >> president yee: well, you wouldn't have two because you already have one that's doing this. can't -- if -- from the b.l.a.s point of view, so if it's $20,000 that they need to -- for staff costs for the second vehicle to do all this stuff, where does it become a wash, you know, between staffing and the life of the vehicle? >> well, to be honest, i'm a

little skeptical of $20,000 in overtime for the number of days, the number of hours that you would actually need the overtime to pick up the vehicle -- >> president yee: i asked -- you didn't even calculate the overtime. >> yeah. i think we'd done an analysis that showed about $8,000 a year would be the potential overtime costs for if they actually did require an additional person to go and -- a little bit early and pick up the car. so about $8,000 a year, maybe 5, 6 years, that becomes a wash. >> president yee: so one more question of the director. if it's -- again, maybe i'm miscalculating this, but this second driver would be somebody that would be going to this

training any ways? >> they would be one of our firearms instructors if they agreed to do that. >> president yee: okay. so i shouldn't even count the 8 hours. it's really the overtime we're talking about. >> correct. >> president yee: okay. it's up to decide if this 8 hours times whatever it is -- the life of the vehicle, we save money or lose money, and it looks like it's a wash. >> chair fewer: a little bit of a wash, but more convenient for the person transporting it. >> much more. >> chair fewer: let's hear from supervisor ronen. >> supervisor ronen: supervisor yee asked all of the questions i was going to ask. great questions, supervisor yee. so we've decided that -- i got 6.75 years, and do we know what the average life of a vehicle is? i mean, it sounds --

>> well, generally, it should be hopefully 10-plus years. i think in this city we tend to replace vehicles more often than the average consumer on less miles. departments request replacement of vehicles with less than 50,000 mile, but in general, that's what we see citywide. but in terms of the length, you would hope that you would get at least ten years out of a vehicle. >> chair fewer: thank you. supervisor stefani? >> supervisor stefani: thank you, chair fewer. hi, chief, how are you? >> fine, thank you. >> supervisor stefani: i'm all for taking weapons away from prohibited persons, so thank you for that. but i wanted to ask you, what is the cost for the person to use his personal car? is there a reimbursement cost

here? >> it is the normal vehicle mileage reimbursement. i think our concern is more about the liability -- >> supervisor stefani: that was my second question is the liability. so what does -- what does that calculate out to? >> you know, i don't think he's calculated that out. we have a vehicle that is a 2001 that clearly needs to be retired. the majority of our vehicles are anywhere from 2012's to 2014, with the out lier being that 2001. >> supervisor stefani: has that been discussed with the b.l.a., possibly