think we'll be able to continue to, to grow. it just will make us be very intentional about our priorities. and i haven't had a chance to talk with supervisor walton yet. i'm sure he has very strong feelings as well, but. okay. he's he's nodding so or he's just looking at me. so i'm sure you're right. if supervisor walton has something to say, he would definitely say it, but i don't see any name on the roster at the moment. thank you for all the work that you do, and hold us all accountable for the work that we do, i look forward to just learning more about decisions around sharp and some other, vacant or non vacant positions within your organization. and just point of clarity, i think the decision around sharp lives outside of me . so i just i don't know if that's coming from you all or the mayor's office, but i just want to be clear that we will not move forward. the position. but i don't think we decide

where sharp lands. understood. thank you. great okay. with that, the next city department is, my gosh, my oh rec and park. right. rec and park. yes. okay. and with rec and park, i believe there's also, trailing legislation item four through six. yes. item numbers four through six are resolutions authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend the following grants. item four is in the amount of approximately 619,000 from the bay area air quality management district to install level two electric vehicle chargers at six park sites, including the crocker-amazon maintenance garage. louis sutter maintenance

yard, civic center garage, balboa park boxer stadium, margaret hayward maintenance garage, and mclaren park caretaker's cottage, effective upon approval of this resolution through january 29th, 2026. item number five is retroactively authorizing grant funding in the amount of 200,000 each for the greenacre and youth stewardship programs, for a total amount of 400,000 from the habitat conservation fund to protect threatened wildlife habitat for the performance period of july 1st, 2023 through june 30th, 2028. item number six is in the amount of 2 million from the usda forest service to develop a workforce development program and implement reforestation projects in at least ten parks in the southeast quadrant of san francisco, and approve the associated grant contract. madam chair, thank you and the floor is yours. good afternoon, chair

chan. supervisors, my name is antonio guerra, director of administration and finance for the recreation and park department. and in this budget presentation is really going to focus on the challenges of this very difficult budget for us. on the next slide, i wanted to make sure that we took a look back over the past five years because there is a perception as a baseline department, that rec park has been able to, fund its own surface services sufficiently with its current revenue. but i do want to point out that over the past five years, our general fund support has grown 6. while the city's total general fund has grown by 11. our total budget has grown by 11, while the city's total budget has grown by 17. and on the next slide, our city costs have increased more than our revenue over the past five years. we're not guaranteed any additional funding for city expenses that outpace our revenues. personnel pay growth has grown within our department by 19, and our work orders to

organizations like the sfpuc city attorney's office, city administrator has grown by 28. and as an example, while our total work orders over the past five years have grown by $7.7 million, while our general fund support has grown by 4.6 million. and on the next slide, unfortunately, it doesn't really get better for us over the next two years. this is probably the most boring bar chart i've ever made, but it's done to show that overall, our revenue is increasing by about 1% over the next two years. that's in the open space fund, which is two and a half cents of every $100 of assessed value in san francisco, as well as our general fund support. on the next slide, i do want to talk about our earned revenue and how that has recovered since the pandemic, what this slide is showing is the last year prior to covid fiscal year, 1819 versus last fiscal year 2223. just a comparison of actuals within the general fund last

year compared to pre-covid. we're basically flat. we've recovered, but we haven't seen any growth within the general fund. and those are our three general, main sources of revenue earned revenue, open space fund and general fund support. so how are we dealing with this? we're trying to be as efficient, efficient and cost effective as possible. we're looking to make changes in our park stop program, turn it into a workforce development initiative , with the help of h.s.a, we plan on, revising our current agreement with the garden society as they operate the gardens of golden gate park and shift more revenue from capital expenses into operating. we're going to continue to save water. we've actually saved just comparing potable water usage. we've saved 37% since 2018. we're looking to coordinate with the sfpuc, at to see if we can generate more support for our operations and land management on properties co-managed by the two agencies. and within this

budget, we've received an additional $400,000 for work at lake merced. and additionally, we've saved in workers compensation costs resulting in savings over the next two years of $700,000 in fiscal year 25 and 500,000 in fiscal year 26. however, this budget will have significant reductions over the next two years, we have an ongoing $1 million in mid-year budget cuts, which include the elimination of five positions and add back in work order. we have the ongoing loss of soda tax funding. $2.68 million, $7.3 million in overall program reductions to be implemented over the next two years. we will be keeping vacant positions open, not backfilling new vacancies and reducing non personnel and materials and supplies spending. we're not anticipating any layoffs. we are keeping everybody on, but we will have roughly 50 fte unfunded over the next two years. we also have a one time $0.7 million general fund baseline capital reduction in

substituted with bond interest. so how does that affect our staffing and vacancies, positions held during the van, vacant during the pandemic have been filled as earned revenue rebounds. so if you look at the table on the right, june 2020 for our vacant positions are roughly the same 175 to 167, but we're holding far less in attrition because we've had the earned revenue over over the past year in order to fill them. we're in the hiring process for 91 positions, as opposed during the pandemic, when we were when we were only hiring into 47. however this proposed budget will result in more position vacancies for budget savings. so as i mentioned, 50 fte either defunded or funded with one time sources in 2526, we have ten positions sitting on soda tax funding. we have temporary salary reductions. we have roughly 30 position attrition positions, net due to greater attrition savings and five position dilutions. and how does

that impact the park system and recreation? we're going to have smaller gardener apprentice classes, more park maintenance positions held vacant, fewer recreation programs, fewer resources to maintain golf courses, fewer staff available to fix and maintain park facilities, fewer staff available to respond to storms and vandalism, and fewer admin staff to respond to emergencies. and finally, on the next slide, this is something that we obviously don't want to do within this budget. we do have, growth in earned revenue, assuming that we have, pieces of legislation approved by the mayor and the board. so in fiscal year 25, we have a slight overall increase in earned revenue. but in the general fund, our revenue goes down by 1.4 million to more accurately reflect current year actuals. and then in year two, we assume a $5 million general fund or earned revenue overall increase spread between the marina, where we have pending legislation at the marina yacht harbor to increase fees, increased revenue in golf, and then also $2

million of general fund earned revenue as a cumulative increase over the past year. so the budget does assume revenue from this railing legislation. we have tennis court reservation fees, proposed and a recreation programing fee as well as a marina yacht harbor. if the those pieces of legislation are not adopted, we will require additional reductions to the rec park budget. and with that, i am happy to answer any questions you might have. or we could move over to the ease. sorry, could you also, i do have questions about your budget, but let's also go through your items four, five and six presentation, and then we'll probably go to public comment for all three items. and then we're going to come back for these line of questioning. thank you. good afternoon supervisors i'm dalia curry with the recreation and parks department. and i'll be speaking on the next three accept and expend resolutions. the first one is from the bay area air

quality management district, which is a public agency that oversees policies and adopts regulations for the control of air pollution in the nine counties of the san francisco bay area. the air quality management district has approved the department's grant proposal to install 25 electric vehicle chargers at the following six park sites crocker-amazon maintenance garage louis sutter maintenance yard, civic center garage, balboa park boxer stadium, margaret hayward maintenance garage, and mclaren park caretaker's cottage. the six sites were chosen based on operational necessities and their alignment with the agency's eligibility criteria, which includes geographic requirements. this grant supports the department's goal of transitioning to an electric fleet and will enable staff to power electric vehicles, including utility carts and

mowers, that concludes this item . should i move on to the next or please? okay. for the habitat conservation fund, so the california wildlife protection act of 1990 provides funds to the state of california for grants to local agencies to acquire, enhance, restore or develop facilities for public recreation and fish and wildlife habitat protection purposes. the state department of parks and recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the habitat conservation fund program, which allocates approximately $2 million per year to support projects that provide for nature interpretation programs that bring urban residents into park and wildlife areas, protect various plants and animal species, and acquire and develop wildlife corridors and trails.

rpds teenager and youth stewardship programs have provided underserved urban youth with access to hands on outdoor learning and conservation experiences to reap long term health education, personal development, professional development, and community benefits, and have educated the next generation of environmental stewards to protect threatened wildlife habitat for over 12 years, rpd submitted and was awarded $200,000 in hcf funding for the greenagers program and $200,000 in hcf funding for the youth stewardship program, for a combined total of $400,000, this grant is retroactive because the performance period begins in july of 2023, but it should be noted that we have not received any funding as of yet. we have not appropriated any funding or spent any funding. so i wanted to clarify that. and then finally, the usda forest

service's urban and community forestry program delivers nature based solutions to ensure a resilient and equitable tree canopy in cities, towns and suburbs where more than 84% of americans live. studies show that communities with access to trees and green spaces are associated with improved health outcomes, reduced crime, lower average temperatures, and an influx of other kinds of investments and economic opportunities through funding from the inflation reduction act, the forest service is making historic investments in boosting the nation's tree cover in urban, suburban and rural communities nationwide. the department's $2 million grant proposal was approved in february to develop a gardener pre-apprenticeship workforce development program and implement reforestation projects and at least ten parks in the southeast quadrant of san francisco. the southeast quadrant of san francisco is a

lower income area at risk of extreme heat events, exacerbated by a lack of trees and limited capacity to mitigate heat, as well as suffering from high population exposure from proximity to highways and former industrial uses. the proposed project seeks to address these concerns by planting approximately 415 trees in at least ten parks in the southeast quadrant of san francisco maintain approximately 283 trees in three parks in the southeast quadrant and develop a workforce development program that will recruit and train 18 members of the community for a career pathway to the san francisco recreation and park department's acclaimed and well paid gardener apprenticeship program. this grant is affected upon approval of this resolution through february of 2029. thank you. i'm happy to answer any questions. thank you, we will definitely

have questions. or, supervisor walden, would you like to question before or after public comment? well, i guess my question is, how are we doing the budget, question one through three. first and then address four through six. i can wait till after public comment. okay. so we do have some questions. both for your budget and for the for the items before us today, but we will go to public comments for items for five and six together, right now. yes. pardon. yes. we now invite members of the public who have joined us today who wish to address this committee regarding the resolutions four through six. now's your opportunity to approach the lectern. madam speaker, madam chair, we have no speakers. thank you. see? no public comments. public comment is now closed. that's why i was watching. would you? thank you so much. several questions for item number six. do do we

already have a list of parks that the department is focused on? yes, we do, so we will be planting trees in adam rogers bayview casey jones playground, cayuga playground, crocker-amazon gilman hilltop, john mclaren park, kellogg and velasco mini park, little hollywood and youngblood coleman. and then we'll be maintaining trees that are going to be planted through separate grant funding at hers playground india basin waterfront park and john mclaren park trails. and who who came up with that list? staff. yeah, i'd like to continue this item. thank you. understood i think that i think the idea is like, let's have a conversation and evaluate the list with the district supervisor, which i would appreciate, colleagues, if i may, then i'm going to ask, the

questions around can you, i think this is more for your cfo. my apologies, i would love to understand, what is, because i know you mentioned. where's the artwork chart? because i don't see an art chart in this presentation. i think we have requested an art chart for all city departments for presentation. and i think with this, it somehow maybe i'm wrong. maybe. maybe i, i miss it. if you can point to me, that will be great. great. oh, okay. i don't think it's in your presentation, but i now see it in the, in the supplemental of your file. so, can you help me, though, because, like, like i'm trying to do the entire math, but, so you have a total of 991.5 fte. is that correct? that is correct. in apologies, i wanted to be cognizant of time and stay within as close as

possible to five minute time limit. but yes, that's correct. and then what is your vacancy rate again for the entire because i think previously you were just talking about that out of that 50 fte. so i'm just trying to understand out of the 991.5, ftes you have, how many vacancies do you have and where are the vacancy as of june 2024, we're currently holding 77 positions for attrition. and then where are they? like meaning like what divisions of that 77. they're spread throughout the entire organization, if you need more details, we're happy to provide. yeah. okay. i think this is more definitely for the budget and legislative analyst conversations about the vacancy in that 77 ftes. and just know that, again, you're not the only city departments i'm having. i think my colleagues are tired of me saying that already. you know, i think we're definitely looking at, you know, if there's any upward substitutions and vacancy, new positions. we're really going to scrutinize most

of it. i do have this question, though. it looks like, for so besides that, you with your capital outlay and because then again this is about how, there's a few things about rec and park that's unique to rec and park, thanks to general manager ginsburg that you do have a baseline for your capital, funding, which is about 50,000,015 one five, 15 million per year per fiscal year. in fact, you've been actually funded above that baseline for the last two fiscal years, about $6 million above that baseline. but so here i can see it makes sense that you have about a capital outlay of $39.5 million for 23, 24. and then but again, though, i'm also seeing 24 fiscal year, 2425, it's 24 million. and then 25, 26 you're still maintaining and 22 million. is that inclusive of

the base on top of the baseline, or is it inclusive of the baseline of 15 million? yes, it's inclusive of the $15 million general fund baseline. and it also includes the open space acquisition fund, which shows up as a capital outlay. and our contingency in the open space fund. and the reason why it goes down is because, as you know, capital is lumpy. the previous budget year, we budgeted funds for the marine and remediation remediation project in the marina fund. so since that was a one time cost, then it drops. yeah. i mean, you're still a better shape. i can give you this. like, i think fire department is at less than $4 million for their capital outlay for fire stations. so you're you're you're well funded i would say. and you're still going for a $5 million to. i think you have more than $5 million in the current proposed $390 million bond. and so help me understand that your capital outlay here with this clearly, again funded above your baseline , are they inclusive of the bond dollars, this is not inclusive

bond dollars. so, so on top of your 24 and for the $24 million for 24, 25, $22 million in 25, 26, again above your baseline, you on top of that, you still have bond dollars that you actually can use to your, park improvements. yes and just a clarifying question. i think the $15 million you're referring to would be within that $85 million baseline. just as a point of clarification on the other pieces of that, the open space fund allocations are set by charter, for the contingency in the open space acquisition fund. but typically the open space fund, is it for maintenance and capital outlay or is it for acquisition. so a piece of that goes to open space acquisitions. yeah a percentage of the open space fund. and then the other piece for contingency i believe it's 5% for acquisitions, 3% for contingency. hopefully i didn't

flip that. but the contingency we allocate on an annual basis and it is, our current policy is to use that as a reserve for unanticipated emergencies. and we also leave a piece for the rec park commission for any types of small projects that they might want to fund themselves. yeah, i just again, thank you for answering all the questions. i really appreciate it, i hope that you do understand, just like any other city departments, when you have a vacancy and particularly yours is a 77 fte vacancy, we're going to look into that and we're going to come through that, and trying to understand what's going on there and what is it that we can do to for some additional cost savings, with that. so thank you so much. i don't see any name on the rosters. i don't have any additional questions. so i think what we're going to do right now is that, colleagues, i would like to move item four and five to full board, with

recommendation seven. and then continue item six to call chair, and with that a roll call please. second and second. thank you. i always forgot it. thank you. second by supervisor walton. and a roll call, please. and on that motion for the resolutions as items four and five to be forwarded to the july 9th full board of the positive recommendation and for the resolution on item six to be continued to the call of the chair, moved by chair chan. seconded by member walton. vice chair mandelman mandelman i member melgar. melgar i member walton i walton i member. peskin peskin. absent chair. chan i chan i we have four eyes with member. peskin absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and then we have the next city department. point is, office of economic and workforce development.

and while we. oh, that's the next i see they don't they do not have any trailing legislation. okay. good afternoon, chair chan. vice chair mandelman supervisor melgar. supervisor. walton, and thank you. i'm sarah dennis phillips, representing the office of economic and workforce development. thanks for having us today, budget reductions are,

never fun. never something we want to see, particularly when they impact valued community partners. nevertheless we understand the reality of this and future budget years, and are doing our best to make sure we continue basic and necessary services to san francisco's businesses and workers. each year during budget, we remind you of our mission statement, but our goals simply put, are to one start, grow, and keep businesses in san francisco grow jobs and train in place san franciscans in those jobs and then third, in doing both of those things to generate increased business and sales tax revenues. and i just want to reiterate that last point, our a big part of our mission is to increase our tax base so the city can better fund the other departments that you've heard represented here today with, with reduced reductions, while our budget today reflects some unfortunate realities, every investment you're going to see in here is intended to generate

a return on that investment for the city's budget. ewg has six divisions and three commissions overseeing our staff. our senior management team who are here today work closely together across those divisions as the chart in the upper left corner shows. while the size of that team did grow post covid, it's remaining flat this year. so this is an overview of our budget by division. after years of consistent increase due to covid recovery, funds and programs, as well as a few new and one time initiatives, this budget is returning to a level in line with pre-covid years. we're seeing reductions in every general funded category of our budget. as you can see, as we work through how to distribute these reductions in funding, we're using three key criteria. one is the program part of our core mission, two is the program working the way we had hoped, and three, which programs are going to bring us the greatest

impact or the greatest return on investment? while awards, programs and services are diverse, ultimately we support job seekers and businesses and entrepreneurs. in just the last year, these workforce programs have assisted over 5500 job seekers and over 8600 businesses and entrepreneurs. we monitor the impact of that work using performance measures, which vary by program and specific contract. and there's a sample of them here on the slide. we also work with committees and other departments to better standardize those measures. for example, we're working with the workforce alignment committee, which is staffed by our workforce team, to adopt a citywide definition of workforce development, which will help us in monitoring. and we're working with the controller's office on performance metrics across departments. this slide provides a snapshot of more detailed impact just over the past year. we're happy to go into detail on

any of these results, but as you can see, the impact from individual businesses to job seekers to actually bringing people out and about to spend money in the city is pretty great, so in our introduction, i noted a big part of our work is trying to increase our tax base and our general fund for the greater city's benefit. that's why you're going to see continued focus on downtown in our budget. it drives our general fund revenue. and it's where we continue to face post-covid changes. so specifically, sales tax revenue is down 28% pre-covid. hotel tax revenue is down 32% post covid and retail vacancy rates are over 20, particularly in areas like union square. we want to reverse those losses. we want to do so in a way that opens up downtown to more san francisco visitors, to more san francisco based businesses, and in a way that supports other san francisco neighborhoods through the recovered revenue. thus,

we're proposing a series of investment sites developed specifically to increase business and business revenue in the slowest recovering parts of downtown, particularly union square and yerba buena, where we've seen the most visitation historically. i want to note that $4.5 million of this enhancement shown all the way on the right, is not limited to downtown, but can be deployed citywide so that we can be strategic about our investment. another area of enhancement is community public safety via our ambassador programs. and that point, we're joined by our operational partners at the department of emergency management here today. while we've made significant progress on public safety, now is not the time to let up. and you're seeing that investment here. the mayor's budget provides a $5.5 million enhancement on top of a baseline of $16 million to restore mid-market and tenderloin ambassador coverage to ensure park ambassador coverage and to sustain lower

polk ambassadors. this budget will also make ambassador investments in key economic development corridors like excelsior, castro, and adjacent moscone. but all of these will feel some of the impact of our belt tightening as well. with that, thank you. we're grateful for your leadership here, and we understand you have some hard choices to make. we're ready to answer any questions you have. supervisor walton, thank you, chair chan. thank you for the presentation. director phillips, how much of an increase reduction is the department suffering beyond the midyear cuts? i'm sorry. can you repeat that question? how much of an increase reduction is the department suffering from on top of the midyear cuts, on top of the midyear cuts? mayor, do you know that math in between the total is 21.1? and i'm not sure how many of those were made in the midyear. we may have to get

back to you with that one. so taking out the mid-year part of the question, what are the reductions being proposed right now for this budget amount 21.1 million. and how does that split look? i can bring that slide back up so you can see that while we're speaking as well, so we're seeing about $10 million reduction on our economic development side. we're seeing a little under 10 million, 11 million on economic development side, just under 10 million on the workforce development side. and then smaller slices across film and the office of small business. and so there are no more proposed reductions for the workforce side outside of what we're seeing here outside of what we're seeing here. yes, 9.6 million. and i do want to note that on both the econ and workforce development side, some of those look like cuts here because we are shifting parts of the dreamkeeper initiative portfolio that were previously in our budget, 4.6 million of that across those two divisions

will go back to hrc for the dreamkeeper initiative. so what i'm what i'm trying to figure out because i know that california has the highest unemployment rate in the country , and, you know, we have a, a pretty extremely high unemployment rate in san francisco compared to the rest of the state, particularly in certain demographics. so how are we affording to cut bigger chunks of workforce development programs that connect people to skills, connect people with the ability to be able to obtain jobs, and particularly, populations. primary populations of color. so there are a couple of ways we're doing that. none of them are easy, right? i think the way we are trying to make those choices on the workforce development side, number one, is to try to see where we can shift some of the burden to outside sources like state and federal grants. and our workforce team is really great at doing that.

and we can give you more detail on that individually. we are trying to, as i mentioned, the criteria of where we look at cuts. there are portions of where we have been focusing our workforce development that maybe aren't the best bang for your buck. we have four sectors right now. we have health care, hospitality, construction and tech, while we've seen really great gains and we continue to see job growth in those first three sectors, the tech sector has been particularly hard hit. over 15,000 jobs lost last year, almost 5000 already this year. and we've seen very low placements simply because of the challenging pressures of getting people placed in those jobs. so we're trying to be strategic about where we place those cuts and make sure that we're investing in the programs where we're seeing success. that said, there are still some hard choices to be made, and when will we know specifically, like what programs are impacted and what organizations we're working through that right now? i think we'll be able to give you that information by early next week, and our goal is to be able to inform our partners as well.

well, just real quick, because i think we met last week and you said we i would know that this week. i did, and that's why i sent you a note apologizing that we're not getting there. part of our work, particularly because we cooperate with agencies like hrc on those expenditures, is we want to be really careful and strategic about where we're placing those cuts, and it's our goal to share that information with you and our partners. and we know we need to do that because it's going to impact them as well. very much. well i just think, you know, if we're looking at recovery for the city and making sure that we're made whole and everyone is able to bounce back, cutting the most vulnerable populations is, the most necessary work of the department. and economic viability goes hand in hand with workforce. so there's no way we're going to be able to continue to reduce the opportunities to connect people to jobs and at the same time, rebuild our economy here in the city. that's just arbitrary to the work. thank you. thank you.

you have about 164 ftes, a little over 150, i believe. yeah yeah. and how much, how many of those do you have? any vacancy? we have about 17 vacancies. most of those are somewhere in the process of being an offer to being approved by the mayor's budget office, we are holding about five of those vacant for attrition savings. okay what is joint development? joint development is our department that works on public private partnerships. big developments like mission rock, treasure island, the potrero power, the petro power center, you we're not seeing reductions there. we're not seeing any change because they are they are self-funded. they are paid by the partners that they whose projects they work on, they build directly to those development partners. i see. so like mission rock, then they will be funded by mission rock. yeah. how many ftes are there? i'm going to turn to my

partners. do we know how many ftes in joint dev? actually, i have that here, don't i? i can't actually read. i mean, i think if you're pointing back to your slide three, you don't actually have the number there, i will i will report back on that point. sorry, i don't have that number in my head. what is your business development? what does it do. so we we're serves all business in san francisco. the easy way to think about it is our business development team serves larger businesses and our office of small business serves small business. and that's how we kind of split that work. and what did they do for the corporation can be anything. i mean, i think we work on strategic initiatives. we work on marketing san francisco, for example, going to conferences and trying to get businesses to locate here. they work on policy initiatives like our new office tax credit that you helped us bring forward last budget season, and then how many ftes are there? i'm going to open my

binder. i do not have this in in my mind. and i'm happy to share them with you on paper if that is helpful. yeah, i like to just have a better understanding of like what those divisions actually exactly do. okay. i mean, i can see that like maybe the joint development is more for like commercials or like, you know, like development. and then i can see that business development is with corporation and then help me understand what is a community economic development. our community economic development division works with priority neighborhoods or communities on economic development. so a lot of the vacancy filling and growth that you've seen on the third street corridor in bayview was supported by our community economic development team, we, you know, a number of other neighborhoods. the mission, the work in the mission in and then work across priority demographics to supporting our filipino community, particularly south of market. and then what is the fte? is there, as i noted

with the other ones, i don't have this one in mind, so i will get back to you on that. no problem, actually looks like your person has numbers. thank you. chair chan, merrick, postwar cfo for wd, for joint development. there's 15 fte for business development. there's 11. and for community economic development, 21. great. i'd like to see that, ratio, but, so are they corporation or business development, 11 ftes funded, just like the 15 fte is funded by corporations that we work with. no. and it's not i, i'm going to i'm going to just take issue with your note of corporation. so our business development team, for example, we have a nightlife, entertainment and arts specialist, a two person team that focuses specifically on that sector and uplifting that

sector. it's not a corporation dedicated team. it's about just many of our businesses are not small hand holding businesses. there are larger businesses and sectors that we want to see grow and supported here in san francisco. how do you differentiate, differentiate? okay, help me understand. so for example, the investments around union square as well as those decisions around union square as well as power streets, cable car turnaround, like, you know, those investments determination who, who which division will be in charge of that. so most of this would be in our business development division. although when we talk about the grants portion, especially that 4.5 million at the end that can be deployed citywide, that is deployed through our community economic development division. and then when it comes to your ambassador program, which division would that be fall under? that is primarily under kids. while community economic development division. i do want to note with ambassadors, it's a it's a program that we stood up

post-covid. we're happy to support. we are a grant making agency. we work closely with our operational partners at dem, and we are working on a long term strategy to help shift that program directly to dem. it just requires more support and contracting and management, which we have at this point. and they do not. yeah, i mean, i think we have this conversation for a while now and, you know, we even have an audit about street team by the budget and legislative analyst report. when is that transition is going to happen. so we've been working you know, i, i took helm of this department a year ago and that was a question that that was presented to me right away. and marion carroll and i, who's here today, have been working on a strategy including potentially some shifting, even of ftes towards getting to that contractual management. i think dem is not quite ready to do that, given the burden that they have right now operationally. and so we're happy to support until they are. yeah, i mean, i

think the challenge with that also that i want to just lay it out there, it's like this is a difficult budget time. i mean, yesterday we just heard about the oca like community ambassador being completely zeroed out in the second year. i mean, i do see some reduction here in your presentation. i think the challenge is that when we think about city workers who are doing this line of work, maybe there's something different, especially considering the deployment area. downtown, i want to focus on specifically downtown because i think there is also the tenderloin conversation, but i'm shifting this really focus on the downtown investment versus everywhere else. and in this case is to see that there's a contract continuing focusing on downtown for the ambassador program. and yet we're zeroing out a community ambassador program. and that has been traditionally employed deployed in southeast sector. the mission and chinatown. and i think that's like that's a challenging that's a very difficult conversation for us to have and

for us to be able, or at least for me, i should speak for myself. now, it is very difficult for me to think, to continue to support, this work when we actually have to zero out another city division. so i want to put it on record publicly right now that that's a very difficult, thing going around it. i also wanted to point to the investment that, you know, i read in the paper, it's apparently a $3.5 million light show, in the power street cable turnaround. it's also difficult for me to think about when we invest in that way when we're, i get it out of the $9.6 million that you're by reduction in the workforce development, you are shifting about roughly 4 or $5 million, just really to the human rights commission. but that still remains at least $4 million of reduction in workforce development. so if you

were to ask me, and if i must and i am have to prioritize funding and allocation and investment, a light show at powell street cable turnaround, cable car turnaround versus the very same same almost the same dollar, roughly a $4 million investments in workforce. i would take workforce probably any day, to be honest. even when it's good time, because that's invest in human, in people, in our workers versus a light show. and so i just wanted to also put it clarify a point on that chair chan, which is there is nothing in this budget that is going towards powell street. street improvements. what you read in the paper is a is a design that has a price tag attached to it that was reviewed yesterday. the funding for powell street was in last year's budget to fund the design work that you're looking at. so but there is nothing in this budget that is that is funding that line item that you are more than happy to take that $4 million back, since it hasn't been spent. i to then to then

augment this. right. so to be clear the there is there was $4 million allocated towards powell street in last year's budget that this board helped allocate. thank you. 2 million of that went towards the design and process, the results of which you were looking at today. two more million is available for early interim improvements. and that is a carry forward that we'll look at how to best expend, but that is not on the table for there is no specific plans to fund what you were citing. just to be clear. i'm going to make that clear, and i think this should be clear to the budget and legislative analyst and to director downing and we all due respect to you as well, director dennis philip, is that we're going to be looking at every single dollar and that and, and it is my commitment that i think it's the right thing to do is we don't need to grow a $15.88 billion budget to

fund, workforce development and other when we know that there could be shift shift of spending. and i think that this is my commitment and i again, i wanted to with all due respect to your work and to your team, and i really appreciate i know it's very tough work to revitalize our downtown, but this is sort of one of those moments that when we face a ballooning budget deficit some and, and at at a conversation where, well, if even if it's remaining a 2 million or however way to just kind of looking at the ftes that you have and the people that we have, then i look forward to working with you to kind of figure out how do we fund workforce development, how do we bring back that dollars and understand that the cut into workforce is really actually a part of cut to a vital part of revitalizing, revitalizing downtown? i'm not too sure. how

do we really have a vibrant downtown without workers? and i don't just mean tech workers, i mean workers of all sorts. and it's your restaurant workers or your hotel workers, your janitors, like, but, you know, but also building a future workforce force that is sustainable and can actually be getting higher pay and different jobs so that we have a more diverse, sectors workforce in san francisco. i think that the one of the reasons that san francisco is sort of in the jam that we're in with downtown is because we're so reliant in one industry. and then when one, one industry decides that they are no longer going to work in person and work from home. and that's why we see that how detrimental it is to san francisco. and, you know, i think it's time that we shift that thinking and start reinvesting all sorts of workforce and make our workforce much more diverse than it is now, for the long term growth.

we're just so you're clear, we're in full alignment with those goals as well. and i'm sorry if they did not come through. thank you, supervisor morgan. thank you. chair chen. you actually said a bunch of stuff that i wanted to say, i will just say that i am, you know, sort of to the early, points in your, in this discussion, i would be interested in, supporting the recovery of downtown, even with lights or whatever. beautification, how never what i'd like to see before we put our money where our mouth is. like that is a plan, that i can send up to as an urban planner, because i think that, you know, in addition to the pandemic, in a particular industry, you know, sending their workers home, i think our problems downtown actually predate that, by a bit.

so you know, we started seeing a decrease in folks going up to the eighth floor of nordstrom, like a while ago. right when somebody brings you a little box to your door with whatever your heart desires, you know, the incentive to go up to the eighth floor of nordstrom is just not as much anymore. and i feel like because, tourism and hospitality is our number one industry. and so much of it was concentrated downtown, fisherman's wharf. right? we have not planned for how do we diversify our portfolio of offerings in terms of tourism and hospitality, the way we could have when we saw the writing on the wall 12 years ago, 15 years ago. so i am totally for like reinventing and beautifying, doing what we need to do. but i also think that the neighborhoods are part of that

recovery. bayview is part of that recovery. district seven is part of that recovery. the richmond, you know, seacliff, the cliff house, all of this is part of the recovery, and then we have to think, since our transportation infrastructure goes through downtown, what do we do with that? so i'm okay with putting in 2 million for a light show, but it has to like, support it. a reinvention plan that i can believe in that we all can believe in. and i haven't quite seen that. so, that being said, i do think that, i want, you know, you you are newish in this role and i support your leadership. i work with you for a long time. you're one of the smartest people in this town, i do wonder if the way that you're organized now by sector is the right way to do it. in terms of workforce, i have spent a lot of the work that i've done in this, you

know, chair supervisor working on issues of economic disparity, with women specifically, in some of the sectors that you, you're organized around, like, the disparity in wages between women and men is pretty stark, and so i, you know, i do i do wonder, you know, about the wisdom of cutting back workforce at this point. but also, i'm wondering, you know, sort of about your vision going forward. because in a world where there's reduced, resources and we have to make tough decisions, we also have to make smart and strategic decisions. and i'm looking forward to hearing, you know, the grand plan not just for downtown recovery, but where we're going with workforce, because it's also a fact that during the pandemic, you know, latinos, got covid more essential workers suffered more. they lost those jobs in hospitality, be more, you know,

all of the child care workers, like all of those things. and so in getting to a place where we're thriving again, i don't think it's about going back to where we were in 2019. i really do not, i think the world has fundamentally changed, and we still are one of the most beautiful places in the world. we have a very educated and hardworking population. we have all of the assets that make us wonderful. but i'm still waiting to, you know, see what the plan is. so before, like, we start moving money around or, you know, like, i really just i want to believe in what you're doing. it's important to me. and i'm looking forward to the plan. thank you. supervisor melgar. and i just want to note that we do look forward to coming back and working with your office, both on the heart plan, which is hospitality, entertainment, arts, retail and tourism that we collaborated with the planning department on and the supports that $15 million investment proposal. and on our overall workforce plan because it is a long term goal of ours as well.

thank you. i think, what i'm i'm going to ask continue to ask. i think that, for example, i want to go back a little bit about the business development team that you mentioned, and my apologies if clearly i do not understand, you know, like the division. and so i sort of just trying to place and interpret it as corporation and if there's more than more than that and more to that, because i was kind of going along with your framing. right. business big business. and then versus your office of small business, which, by the way, like heads off to your office of small business team. thank you to director katy tang and her entire team really got at least i know for the richmond and for the west side. like really for us. like, thanks to them that we were able to get through the pandemic and then and then thrive and then some. and the collaboration with their team, it's amazing. and so i for that, i really am thankful. i think that the back to the business development piece, i think a little bit of adding

back to supervisor melgar is saying, like i would say, well, it should be the case if you ask me, what can we bring workers back to downtown and what can we do to really make sure that it works like i support nightlife? i think that's a good strategy. in fact, i support it. also, even a tax waiver for reit tax exemption for corporations to start new location. what can we do to attract them back? i voted in support of, converting the legislature to convert office space into housing, and then here we are. and we're still not kind of getting the type of progress that we would like to see. and i think that the next sort of this next phase of it is also childcare. i think that if we start to how we approach business development and how we approach this downtown in not just in a business perspective and, and corporate perspective, but a little bit of a balance of

like, how do we support workers that can then come back to support these businesses? and as a more of a balanced approach and say, well, you know, in order for workers to come back to support these businesses and to really have a robust economy ecosystem, we got to have a little bit of like support on childcare and, you know, whatever else that it is that we can support the workers so that they can actually work and support these businesses and be at hotels and other retailers, and, and, and just kind of that, that along that thinking i would really appreciate, to see and learn more of that approach, i think it just regrettable perhaps, that the things that initiative that is being highlighted or is it feels a little bit of less of a plan, but more of just a splash. and, and so i look forward to, to doing that. i do agree with supervisor melgar. you are a smart, capable leader. i look

forward to seeing more concrete plan. you only have one year, but i really hope the approach is a bit more balanced. and i think right now just looking at this budget the way it's cut, it worries me that that we're cutting into the workforce, still quite drastically. and i and the money and investment, it's that we've been in terms of grant that went out there, not necessarily also to support the worker, to make it easier for them, unless you want to address , like any specific grant that is specifically for workers, that to make it easier and not reduce in this cycle, that actually will help them go back to work. i'm happy to highlight it. i think one of the challenges of these budget hearings is there's so much we'd love to get in, including the larger plan for our greater sector and the way our business development division supports not just nightlife. it also supports our nonprofit

sustainability initiative. how it works together with our workforce childcare training programs that we house in our workforce. so there's a whole lot of meat beyond what you're able to see here in five minutes. and we'd appreciate continued briefings to be able to share that with you, and we look forward to that opportunity. thank you. i don't see any other names on roster. so, thank you. pardon the interruption, madam chair. just a quick announcement. we do have a board rule prohibiting signs in the chamber out of respect to other members of the public who deserve an under obstructed view of our proceedings. kindly lower your pages. no higher than your own eyes. thank you much, madam chair. thank you. and, with that, let's go to department of public health. and with that, mr. clerk, please also call item seven through ten. yes. item seven through ten. item number seven has an ordinance amending the health code to set patient rates and rates for other health

care services provided by the department of public health for fiscal years 2024 to 2025 and 2025 to 2026. item number eight is an ordinance authorizing the department of public health to award a one time grant to planned parenthood northern california by waiving the competitive solicitation requirements of the administrative code for the purpose of funding security personnel to support access to family planning and other sexual and reproductive health care services in an amount not to exceed 456,000 for a term not to exceed two years to commence on april 1st, 2025 through march 31st, 2027, and requiring the department to provide an annual report to the board of supervisors on the security personnel selected by planned parenthood and security incidents experienced, item number nine has an ordinance amending the administrative code to repeal sections known as the medical emergency services fund, and thereby repealing certain reimbursement payments to physicians who provide emergency

medical services to indigent patients. and item number ten is a resolution authorizing the acceptance and expenditure of recurring state grant funds by the san francisco department of public health for the fiscal year. madam chair. thank you. and here we are, doctor colfax, the floor is yours. thank you. and grant colfax, director of health, recognizing the chair and the members, really pleased to present our budget. and as proposed, the budget required us to make some really tough choices to meet the required, targets, but we believe that the budget as presented maintains key services across our health system to protect the health of san franciscans. this includes preserving services at zuckerberg san francisco hospital, our city's only level one trauma center. strengthening

laguna honda's transformation to be a world class, skilled nursing facility, improving and strengthening health equity across our primary care system, allowing us to continue to monitor and protect the public from infectious diseases such as covid mpox and the emerging threat of n5, n1 or bird flu and ensuring that we continue to strengthen our behavioral health system, including to ensure that people with fentanyl addiction have access to life saving medications. i also wanted to just reinforce to the to the board that two thirds of our budget, is from other sources than general fund state and federal dollars and that many of our general fund dollars actually are augmented and matched by federal dollars. in particular. i also wanted to

point out to the board members, because i know some of you had a special interest in this, that we've made tremendous progress in filling staff vacancies, including and especially with our, excellent nurses across our system, and finally, i want to thank our chief operating officer and recognize our chief operating officer, jenny lewis, for her leadership and our budget director, emily gibbs, for her work in this really challenging, time. and also to thank the mayor's office for their leadership in this work. so our our mission is to protect and promote the health and well-being of all san franciscans. our vision is big, which is to make san francisco the healthiest place on earth. i've already gone through what we do in, in, in in ensuring that we move forward to that goal. this is our org chart. you can see that we have two main health delivery systems across our our health department, one

is the health network which includes our delivery systems and the population health division, which is so important in monitoring, surveilling, and ensuring that we build towards health equity. with that, we will present our proposed budget, and i will turn it over to our chief operating officer, jenny lewis. through the chair, jenny lewis. gg chief operating officer pleased to present to you, our proposed budget for the upcoming fiscal year, we are still a $3.2 billion budget, i will note that it increases about 1.5% compared to current year, but remains relatively stable over the two year proposed budget. i will also note that our general fund support has reduced actually from 26% to 25. and while i know it's just a percent year over year, it is still a $47 million

decrease. you know, when you're talking about about 900 million of general fund support overall, and as doctor colfax noted, we're about two thirds to three quarters leveraging revenue to offset our overall expenditures of our budget. going specifically into just the breakout, just because this is such a key strategy for the department, this graph represents the total expenditure budget and the portion that is in the blue section, is the general fund support, which leverages that orange section of the top bar, which is the revenues that you see, overall, you can see that it's that blue section is remaining relatively stable in proportion to the size of our department. and i will note that we increased revenue by three over 300 million over the two year budget to reduce our general fund support, 180 million in the first year and 126 million in the second year, and notably of the budget. third

comes from medi-cal, but we also leverage other sources. medicare patient revenues realignment, state and federal grants, as well as proposition c settlement funds and the like, i won't read this, but this graph just shows the breakout of positions by divisions. as you can see, zuckerberg san francisco general are 24 over seven. level one trauma center has the largest number of fte, and i will also just note that, in this first section of the graph, you see the current filled positions as of earlier this month, the second set of columns represents our funded positions. and you'll see that we are at 7600, filled positions compared to our authority of 7800 positions in the current year. but i will also note that next year, our budgeted authority reduces actually to 7700. so when you're comparing to where we are today, where is where we will be two weeks from now? we're just about there in terms of filling those

positions, just to look historically at where our staffing has been compared to budget, we have had some persistent vacancies. but to date, we've filled about 96.8 of our total budgeted position authority. when you take into account both permanent positions and temporary, we've had the highest staffing rate, in our history, to date. overall. i also just want to focus a little bit about the work we've done on nurse registered nurse hiring. and we've done significant, work to close the gap. and we've increased the overall fte by 132 as of earlier this year. and i believe i think we have some extra data that shows improvement there as well. and so when you think about 132 fte, i will note that the overall position authority is about 1500 fte. but from the beginning of the year we went from 12,080 to about 1000 over 1400 as of

earlier this month. and so you could see the significant work that we've done to close that gap in terms of looking at our budget, in terms of our approach, our focus was really on focusing on leveraging the revenues to meet our general fund reductions first and foremost, next, we did look at targeted reductions and expenditure savings working really to minimize, service impacts where possible, we've adjusted budgets to match our projected spend in terms of risk rightsizing, we found some operational efficiencies. we have eliminated vacant positions. about 130 fte, but at the end, there were still additional reductions that were needed with service level impacts through primarily through cbos. that will primarily happen in the second year of the budget. and we will get into more detail on that, i will also just note that our proposed budget includes adjustments that exceed our general fund reduction target as you can see, this top section of the table here shows our 10% and

5% reduction targets, including our 5% contingency. that's about 280 million over the two year budget, and then our proposal to meet, to meet the reduction targets includes the 300 million of revenue that i noted here. that's the 180 and the 126. you see, in the first, line there, some of these revenues were assumed as part of the deficit. so some of this growth was already assumed, so we don't get quite get credit for that. we had 8 million in midyear savings , 8 million in reductions in vacant positions that we proposed. we had about 30 million annualized, a proposed contract, savings and efficiencies themselves, as well as about 13.4 million of ongoing reductions that may have service level impacts. on top of that, we'll note, as members of the committee are aware, we have a side letter agreement with, the nrs and it does include an

increase of about 47 fte overall. and so that comes at additional cost of over $14 million. but if you look at this , we have over 300 million of revenue that we proposed about 91 million of expenditure reductions over the two year budget. and so in terms of proposed reductions, general fund savings reductions, we're looking at about close to 400 million of initiatives within the department. diving a little bit into more of the details around those expenditure savings, that's i think the meat of the interest in this, in as part of this hearings, again, the mid-year savings we've discussed, which included 55 fte, we reduced 75 vacant positions, we achieved savings through our healthy san francisco's program. as a result of expanded medi-cal eligibility through the state. and so, as we expect more people to become eligible for medi-cal, they will no longer become eligible for

healthy san francisco. this is a good thing. healthy san francisco is a health access program versus medi-cal provides coverage throughout the state, this is good. there should be no loss of coverage as a result of this proposed reduction. here we have also reduced $2 million of our covid testing and vaccination costs. looking at our current trends and demand, in addition, we have about 10.8 million of proposed shifts, of general fund costs, where appropriate, to leverage non-general fund sources. this includes population health grants, maternal child health grants from the state as well as opioid settlement funding, we had a series of belt tightening, for the next two just, adjusting leases. it operating as well as pharmacy savings costs to adjust for projected, spend. and that's a reduction of about almost 3 million annualized. we have also reduced our proposed, budget for

the affiliation agreement, which provides all the physician and provider services at zuckerberg san francisco general to more align with expected, with expected, spending, we in the second year of the budget, there's a proposed reduction to our payment to chinese hospital for skilled nursing beds. this is anticipation of them achieving, certification by medicare, and so when that's, you know, we are currently paying full freight for the cost of those beds. and the expectation is, is that when they do become a certified, that they would not be receiving a double payment for those beds, of course, we put this item in the savings as part of the second year of the budget to make sure that they have sufficient time, to achieve that recertification. we will work with them over the course of the year, make adjustments as necessary to this proposal if needed, next, there is reduction in our healthy community grants,

which is funded by the soda tax or the sugary drink, distributed tax funding, there's about 3 million, which essentially eliminates the, outreach program. so not direct programs, but it is outreach, to get, for to populations, and as i understand it, i think these dollars will be shifted over to the human services agency so they can maintain their support for the food security work that they have been doing, in addition, there's about $2.5 million reduction to our street violence intervention program, about 2.1 million of this reduction is related to an adjustment to a work order that from gqf that funds a significant portion of this program, they instead have reviewed the program and because of their funding requirements, don't believe that it meets some portion of their funding, does not meet the, requirement for

serving populations 26 and under, and so instead, they are proposing in their budget to take those funds. and as i understand it, they are going to be shifting it to school based crisis intervention instead of this particular program. in addition, we expect this program to renew its rfp. and so there's an assumed reduction in service level, about another $375,000. with this reduction, we still will have approximately about $3 million for cip, as well as an additional million dollars for the bereavement program, and then last but not least, there's a proposed 5% reduction in cbo contract spending. this is a calculation based off of, the proportion of contracts we do not believe leverages general fund. this is put in the second year of the budget. should this cut remain, we will work closely with the mayor's office, and determine a plan for how we would actually implement this

$10 million to minimize service level impacts and maintain, services to core programs. and again, i will note that these last three items will also be included as part of the balance and hearing, as there may be potential service level impacts, on the flip side, in terms of new and continuing investments, i just want to emphasize what we still have or will continue to have, one of the things that we are moving forward with is actually expanding our upper room operating room capacity, this is actually a positive because we actually think that this will be revenue generating of $5 million, and then we have the additional support of the additional runs, primarily at zuckerberg san francisco general, and then i also just want to note investment s, that we have using opioid settlement funding, which includes increased access to substance use treatment and medication for addiction treatment, and then a focus on black african american overdose prevention, and the

budget also continues. several living program that is implemented by hsh and also continues high impact intervention services. as you see here, the chair asks for performance metrics. we use data in many different ways, including our true north strategic planning, compliance and monitoring, and performance milestone based payments that we have with the state, as well as quality improvement and regulatory compliance. i won't read this to you here, but, examples of data and performance goods, and performance goals are listed here, and then as well as and then following slide, we have information on the current audits and assessments that we do in close partnership with the controller city services auditor program. and then just to close out my presentation, i will note that there are four pieces of legislation, before you today.

the first is annual recurring grants. these are grants that, the board sees pretty much every year, requires a board of supervisors resolution, and we're just consolidating them into one piece of legislation, for ease. in addition, we have patient rates, and these are rates that, that we are required to have at very few people pay, but they are required to have we're just making minor updates just for consumer price inflationary costs, we also have a piece of legislation for planned parenthood, it continues a prior year initiative that allows us to make a payment to planned parenthood to support security services for that organization in. and then last but not least, we have a proposed, elimination of what the emergency medical services fund, just the background on this is that the state law authorizes counties, but we're not required to establish a fund to reimburse certain providers

who provide emergency medical services to uninsured. it's funded with a $2 fine levied on every $10 fine in violation of the vehicle code. vast majority of the payments are really to hospitals with some individual physician groups as well, the annual revenue has dropped from about a high of 1.6 million and currently to about 400,000 and projected to continue to drop. the reason for this drop is about 2018, when the mayor's office adjusted, the fees that could be applicable to, to a draw down to be applicable to the matty fund for equities and so it used to be both criminal code as well as the vehicle code . they eliminated the criminal criminal code portion of it, essentially. and so what remains left is really any violations to the vehicle code. and so therefore we're seeing that continued decline at this point. the administration costs, if we continue at this rate, will require general fund subsidy.

we're allowed to achieve about 10% to take 10% for administration of this very complex claiming process, about $120 million contract that is used to do this, but just given that we're distributing a 400,000 payments across the city to hospitals and providers, at this point it just doesn't feel it's not a state requirement and doesn't feel like it's achieving the goals that it should. and we're moving this forward for your consideration as well. that, that completes my presentation. and i'm members of the department are happy to answer any questions you may have. oh we definitely have questions, but what we're going to do is we're going to go to public comments, for these items, four, five, six, four, five and six. oh, sorry for the seven, eight, nine and ten, we're going to go to public comments on these items together, first. yep yes. if we

have members of the public who have joined us today who wish to address this committee regarding the ordinance and item number seven, eight nine or the resolution as item ten, now's your opportunity to address this committee. madam chair, we have no speakers. great seeing no public comments, for item seven through ten, public comment is now closed. and with that, and, colleagues, supervisor melgar. thank you so much. and thank you for the thorough presentation. i really appreciate that. and, that your staff has been so transparent, and communicative and available with my office. i really appreciate that, i have had the opportunity to work quite a bit with your department over the last few years because of, laguna honda and, you know, that's been great. and it's also shown me some areas of growth

that i think could happen in this relationship into your budget specifically, so i just i do have a few questions as to what you're presenting in front of us today, the first one is that i do think that there are some specific things that are, you know, short term reductions in the budget that may have longer costs and consequences. so, just an example, is, you know, the shifting of the sugar tax, to, you know, direct services rather than, you know, outreach and prevention. so, you know, the job that i did right before i became, a supervisor for district seven was work with kids in community schools, and, you know, one of the first things that i learned from my staff, is that they watched out for the kids that had all these, like, metal, you know, overlays

in their mouth when they were like, in kindergarten and first grade, because those were the kids that we like, wanted to support, tended to have more behavioral issues, you know, among kids whose parents don't have health insurance or are living in poverty, or whose diets are not great, there's your department has all this data about the relationship between oral health in the littles and later, not just behavioral issues, but chronic diseases and all this stuff, which, you know, for this population is going to be on the public dime as well. so that's just one example. and i'm wondering if in terms of those cuts that we're making or the shifts anybody has done that kind of a cost benefit analysis, i'm not even touching the moral obligation. i'm just talking about like public dollars spent on care. yeah. so i appreciate it. supervisor. and i mean, i'm not going to sugarcoat this. this was a very challenging budget. and, you know, i think when we were going beyond the

annual cuts, which we knew we had to do in advance, that we would need to exceed those cuts in order to, meet the directives that we were given. there were really difficult choices here. and, you know, i think that when we looked at this and figured, do we do we reduce the actual direct service or do we reduce, some of the outreach that is, is ongoing and, you know, hearing from community members how important those services are, the proposal was very, very, very challenging and difficult to make. i, you know, i think we always, want to do as much as we can in focusing on prevention, because just as you're saying that, you know, the prevention, i mean, as you're implying, i should say, prevention an and is so key, we are able to maintain the prevention services in this budget. what we're not able to maintain under this proposal is the ongoing outreach to communities to let them know and

engage around these prevention services. and so i again, i think it's the situation that we're in. we haven't been in, in such a difficult budget situation for many years, and i hear and understand and appreciate the concerns that you're raising. okay. let me, sort of address another issue. so it was page six, i think, of your presentation, i'm really interested in the, what is in the orange that is not general fund support. what those sources of income are so part of it. you you say it's, you know, medicare, medi-cal. i mean, we know that, in state realignment and other public monies. but i also know that you collect fees for inspections to restaurants you like. you do. there's all kinds of other income, and, you know, that also to me, you know,

in terms of our interaction over the last couple of years, you own a lot of land in my district. you know, some of it is laguna honda, some of it is other land that you own. and so in my interactions with you department and trying to, you know, advance the child care center at general hospital, but also, you know, you finally updated your institutional master plan for laguna honda after not doing it for a long time. and you only propose like a very small thing for, you know, a lot of land that you own. so i'm, i'm wondering you know, and i said this to other departments, is there an opportunity to use those assets to rev to generate income? is there anyone in your department even thinking about that or having the skills to do that? because that's a very specialized skill set. it's not public health per se. it is more like real estate asset management. it's a bunch of other stuff. i know that the

real estate department does that for you, but i'm not sure that they're specifically looking out for your budget. so i'm just wondering if you've had that right in, in a time of dwindling resources when you're just sitting on so much assets that could be, you know, or at least have a plan going forward, because i don't think we're going to be out of this for this after this year. i think it's going to be there for a while. yep. so, yes. let me turn it over to chief operating officer and jenny lewis to talk about, i believe it's the orange in the bars on page six in terms of the revenue. and then we can also talk a little more about the real estate. okay yeah. and so overall, i mean the majority of our of that orange bar is really related to, clinical services and reimbursement. you get primarily through state and federal sources, medicare and medi-cal, on top of that, and i don't have exact numbers, but we can get a better breakout for you, and then on top of that, we do have of, state grants, which

includes mental health services act, soon to be called the behavioral health services act. we have proposition c, c, d, r home dollars, which is considered a special revenue as well, as well as opioid settlement funds, within our budget, in addition, we have the state realignment. we also regularly leverage state just sort of regular grants and not funding through, you know, that's that's not sort of directly tied to services, clinical services provided, in terms of your question around facilities and capitals, we work very closely with. before you move on to that, i was asking specifically about fees. so you do inspection fees, you do, you know, enforcement. yes. you know, for example, when, you know, builders are demolishing stuff and not doing dust control properly. so there's a whole bunch of stuff that you guys, you know, are so, so how much of that income is, is those, like, fees, fines, you know, you know, i know that, you know, one day

my auto pay for sunsets scavenger expired and i had to go down to the health department . so i know that you oversee a whole bunch of stuff. and i'm wondering how much of that is that? and if there's any thought also of updating fees to recover more costs or. yeah. yeah, those fees that you're referencing is really our environmental health services, it's about $30 million. and again, we can get more accurate number. and again, it's related to those fees and fines, that are collected through that agency. and it is restricted. we can't use those that that source of revenue to cover other sources because there's not that nexus or that relationship to charge a fee for that, and it does not fully cover our costs, depending on eligibility and some in some cases, we've had some, policy decisions around parity and equity, such as the mahdi fund that we noted as well, where we didn't want to just fully cost

recover for the for the purpose of cost recovering. and i know that the mayor and this legislative body has made some decisions and adjustments in the past about that. but it is approximately about $30 million, and we can get you that number, in terms of, spaces that we do not occupy there are probably three i can think of. overall, we work with real estate division, to, see, in terms of, leasing them out, whereas i believe that the portola gas station is one it's been there for decades, and i know that there's 2535 onondaga, which i understand, is being leased to nonprofits. and we can get you specific dollar amounts there, and that's not what i'm asking for. you know, i don't i have no doubt that you're utilizing, you know, what you have in a, you know, appropriate manner for your uses. i just also think that aside from that land, you know, you have a bunch of land that you do own that is like a

one story, you know, like, i mean, there is an opportunity for you to actually either lease out the space that you're not fully using or, monetize some of your assets. and so, you know, i know that on the laguna honda campus, there's an entire building that is decaying into nature. you're using the first building now for offices. but what's the plan for that? and so, you know, we're we're seeing cutbacks to, you know, essential services to, you know, in and so for me, it's a little bit difficult to then say, okay, these guys updated their institutional master plan. there's this whole building. it's like prime real estate that there's no plans for. and so i get it that the department of real estate does, you know, this for you. what i'm asking specifically is have you thought about it? have you thought about your assets as a way of producing income for the department at some point? and if you know that you have anyone thinking about it in your structure, or you know that that was more my question. yes.

sorry. yeah. you're right. yes. we do have a master plan. i think it's been a few years since we've kind of dusted it off, but we're happy to share that with you. we do have some plans for an mot wing at laguna honda, which, although is not fit to be, for skilled nursing, is it doesn't meet the state requirements for it. we are planning on building that out for administrative offices, for our staff to consolidate leases. there's like an entire whole other. and then but then. yeah. and so we're happy to bring a look at that and bring that back to you. vice chair mandelman. thank you, chair chan. thank you for the presentation, one of the things that i, have felt about df in the time that i've been on the board is as a department, it does an extraordinary job of bringing money from other, other places and minimizing its impact on, on our on our general fund. and it's super important work. so you know good job df, the

first question, i don't know that i don't expect you to have an answer to this, but, you know, we've we've launched this, sort of beds project, thank you, doctor colfax and doctor collins and everybody who's working on it. and, you know, part of the impetus for the sort of looking more closely at our needs for beds for severely mentally ill people. is that when people get stuck in the wrong bed, that's a that's a cost to us. and i wonder, do we keep track of how much money we're losing when we from the folks we have in the wrong beds? and if we don't, that i mean, i wouldn't necessarily expect us to, but i was i'm just curious if we if we have a dollar figure of what it's costing us. yeah it's that's a it is a very sick, simple question that you're asking that has a very complex answer to it. but again, you

know, i mean, i think that it's the actual loss value is, i think, hard because of the complex revenue streams that you see. and so it depends on the patient, the patient occupant, like the average, you know, average type of patient occupying it, their length of stay as well as, you know, what their, you know, they get set rates. we don't get complete cost reimbursement depending on, on the plan or program that they're at, but yeah, there is a lost opportunity where we perhaps may not be fully, fully maximizing revenue, when patients, are not at the, the, the, the right level of care. i mean, like, i think if we have someone in an acute bed, and that's not the right place that we have trouble getting that paid for. and that can be, you know, yes. hundreds of thousands of i mean, if that person were in generally they're not. but if that person were in the bed for a year, that would be a hundreds of thousands of dollars cost. and if that's happening a lot, maybe slightly related. are we

so good work on laguna honda, everybody. we're not yet taking new admissions to laguna honda or are we? no, not at this time. as we spend as we were waiting for and sort of the follow up to that is doesn't that create kind of the same problem for us of isn't there beds that we're not. i mean, maybe we don't have the staff, but it does create. yeah. thank you. sorry yeah. so yes, i mean i think one of the key things right now is, as you know, laguna honda, because of many people from dph in this room, was did an amazing job of getting medicaid recertification in, after, several successful surveys. we are cautiously optimistic that we are on a, a short path now to medicare recertification. that's we don't have official notification, but we are hopeful, given the result of the survey and supervisor, you're right. if we have people, in other higher levels of care

and they can't go to a skilled nursing facility, that essentially is more expensive and therefore our cost, the way things are set up in our federal system is, you admitting people to laguna honda without that medicare, medicare pays for the first 100 days of skilled nursing facility, and then medicaid kicks in. so we're getting essentially reimbursed for all the people at laguna honda right now because they've all been there for more than 100 days. medicaid would not kick in before medicare. so medicaid is a pair of last resort. i'm not suggesting it's a mistake to not be, but yeah, no, but i'm just i'm just saying. but if you have a facility that is appropriate for 5 or 600 people and you're operating it at 400 something people, there's some lost money there. if you were able to collect that, there's an opportunity cost that we are hopefully going to be able to start building back once we hopefully, optimistically, our medicare recertify. and what is the optimistic and pessimistic version? i mean you think we're

close and is that a are we. i can only tell you what we have the record of, which is, you know, the surveyors and, and, and roland pickens, the director of our health network, is here and has been been leading that effort, but our surveyors have come, they have had minimal or no findings in most recent surveys, which is consistent, as we understand it, with a recertification we don't have. we're waiting from cms, the centers for medicaid and medi-cal services, which is the official body that makes the determination. and again, in, we are we are hoping but i, i, i, i, we are optimistic and hopeful . come on. cms. yes. all right, all right. so from the very like, big actually, i think doctor colfax, you might be the right person for this question. from big dollars down to much smaller dollars, i want to thank the mayor's office and dph for history, for the historic

commitment to, making sure that federal cuts to hiv dollars get backfilled in our city budget. and that's a thing that the city has been doing through this mayor and prior mayors. and again this year, the mayor's office, i believe, found funding to backfill a couple hundred thousand dollars of ryan white care cuts. we are still, i think , anticipating an unknown amount of cdc prevention cuts at a time when seroconversion, although we've had some success in reducing the overall numbers, is disproportionately hitting, black and brown communities and vulnerable folks. and, so i think we need the prevention work needs to is important. it's important from a racial justice perspective. it's the right thing to do. and i'm hoping that we'll be able to continue to fulfill that commitment that we've been making over many, many years. any sense of where

we are and when we may know about what those cuts look like and how hard it will be to, to make up for them or how the city will respond. yeah. so we are continuing to wait from the cdc. we do anticipate a reduction. i don't have a number to provide for you, but certainly with the mayor's office and you know, we will once we get that information, we will certainly do everything we can to sustain the prevention efforts that so many of us share, in terms of the key priority going forward. great. thank you, supervisor melgar. yeah, sorry, i there's one that my staff reminded me that i had a question that i didn't ask before that i just i have to thank you. supervisor mandelman, for the questioning around laguna honda. i just want to point out that, you know, we are working on an assisted subsidized assisted living facility right next door, on what would have been the third

tower at laguna honda. that would take a lot of pressure off of the laguna honda folks who don't necessarily need a sniff bed, but do need some kind of assistance. so and that's been stalled because of, you know, it seems like we could, you know, walk and chew gum at the same time. but your staff has heard plenty from me. so so, my question was about, reimbursements, because about three years ago, a gao, we had a hearing with alex briscoe, you know, at the children's trust about building out our our our you know, overall capacity in the city, a lot of this work was led by folks in the early care and education community and dcf because of, you know, the children's behavioral health dollars. but, i'm wondering how we're doing with that, i know that there's changes in the systems that we're using. it is difficult and clunky, but other people like alameda county have had much better success than we

have in getting those reimbursement dollars. so i was just wondering how are we doing with that supervisor? i appreciate the question. i just wanted to understand so i can have the right get you the right information, the billing, billing in general, reimbursement for services across our children's behavioral health, for children's behavioral health. yeah okay. i'm going to it looks like oh, so drew merrill, our chief financial officer, is here to answer that question. okay thank you. supervisor melgar, speaking specifically to what alex probably presented on, i think was the mental health ma program . yes. and quality assistance and utilization review claiming we've initiated both of those, we are ironing out claiming processes. the state's audit cycle is very delayed, we still look at it as both programs are in sort of a pilot phase, and we're ironing out how we document the hours spent, but in

22, 23, we rolled out, mental health ma claiming, and i would have to get the number specifically, but it's somewhere around $5 million. okay. that's much better than we did the previous year. it is. yeah, it is, and it still is subject to audit risk. and so we're evaluating how much of it we need to reserve in case the state finds issue with how we've documented the hours. okay. thank you drew good job. thank you i first want to say thank you. it's amazing. but i before i say that though i, before i say congratulations, i want to just really make sure that i'm looking and understanding the slide correctly for the registered nurse vacancy trim, is that a 75% decrease within two months time? meaning you

filled the registered nurse after we approve your overtime spending. yes, in terms of looking at the graphs, it is an aggressive assumption. oh, i'm sorry, not an aggressive assumption, but it was, it reflects, coordinated, aggressive work that we have done, to fill the vacancies at csfg. and basically one of i mean, it's a very complex problem in terms of hiring, but, you know, one of the strategies that we took was a coordinated batch hiring process. and this was an incredible effort by both our human resources, led by luana kim, as well as our nursing leadership with jillian otway and terry d'antoni, where both sides really had to coordinate. we are also experienced a change in what we see as an increase in applications to be become an rn with the city. this was a

challenge for the last several years, and now we're seeing the tide is turning back towards us. and so we're seeing an increase in the number of eligible applicants, interested in a city job. we took advantage of that with several months of coordinated batch hires, you know, so instead of everyone having their own specific panel, we said, let's invite everyone in and have multiple people, determine what's the most appropriate offer for these candidates. and let's just work them through, in a coordinated, efficient fashion. and so that is those numbers are very real. we are very proud of them. but it's a result of a lot of hard work and trying to not do business as usual. in terms of our hiring. i so appreciate it. congratulations. department of public health. that's amazing. i mean, that is an amazing example of what i know that i when you came before us in december or january for the overtime spending, i know we were quite harsh and i admittedly, and even

when you came before us for your additional contract for so that you can actually have contracting out for nurses and including a bit of a overspend going from 5 million to 11 million for one of the contract, which i will not name, but really because i forgot the name , but, you know, still, and i also will be remiss to not say we also had partnership with the unions where they allowed us to change the types of lists. can going from continuous lists and having some flexibility than the traditional six month static list for, you know, for multiple classifications. and so again, it was a real partnership amongst, all of the key stakeholders involved. i'm just grateful. i mean, because at the end of the day, the people it's really san franciscans that benefit from from that effort, and that is amazing. so first, i just want to congratulate you on that. now, now, i wanted to actually kind of still understand, though you do have about seven, a little bit over 7000 or, you know, well, 7600,

700 ftes with your $3.2 billion budget, but you still have about 130 fte vacancy, can you kind of walk us through exactly what those are, i don't have specific deal. and again, this what these figures represent, i think you're looking at slide seven. yes. and so what these figures represent is our current filled positions compared to our, funded, budgeted authority. and so this is after attrition. and so there are, you know, additional positions that we position authority for, but we do not actually have funding, to do, but what we can, so we can in terms of so it's, it's not just 130 additional fte. we have budget authority to add an additional 130 positions. and even if we were to get there, obviously our hiring would not stop because we constantly have the turn as people depart, retire, seek promotive opportunity, so we will continue

our hiring, watching closely how we maintain within our budgeted authority. but to answer your question, it's not just the list of 130, fte. i was some of the top classes, that we do have vacancies. and still represent the highest. they also represent the single highest largest class we have within the department, 1500 position authority, compared to about 8000 fte. so that, so there's about but there i'm pleased to say, there are fewer than 100 vacancies, i believe around 90, fte still remaining, next is social workers. and i think that one of the things we are going to do is we're going to take some of the lessons learned that we piloted, we learned some good things, we learned some bad things with their hiring. and we will look at social workers. i will note that one of the most significant differences between social, you know, in social workers is that we are not seeing that pipeline. we're not seeing quite that change in the number of applicants. the demand is still high. there's still a nationwide

shortage, we're looking at different ways we can recruit and expand our efforts and creative ways. there but social workers are our second largest class. and then, i think, followed by, health workers as well. we can give you a list of sort of the top ten vacancies, yeah. i think that will be a list for our budget and legislative analyst. but i, i think i kind of know why social workers are really don't have a pipeline. the, the degree is expensive, the pay is not great and the work isn't the work. it's tough. the work, it's tough, so with that, this is going to probably be my last question, you know, i, i think we would love to just in context for this committee, as we i know that it's going to be a committee of the whole the entire board is going to come together. but we have not have a balancing hearing for almost a decade or more than a decade, a little bit more than a decade now, i think that i, i want to first to be the first to admit i

walk us through the requirement a little bit. why is it trigger now we're going to go through this committee of the whole hearing. and then before that, though, i, i just want to flag i just also wanted to understand before you walk us through the balancing hearing requirement is the chinese hospital. for the for i totally understand that. hey there. thank you for walking them through this, cms certification process so that they can actually get reimbursement for medicare. but as we know that it's not like they're going to get 100% reimbursements for providing subacute bed for the city. so, i mean, i think the averaging is like, what, 85% of reimbursement rates and remaining of 15. so is that 6.6 million. so what are we going to do? so are they going to bear the cost of that 15% of the remaining cost. yeah. so that's a great question, and as you'll see, you know, while we leverage medicare and medi-cal,

wherever we are, we still get a general fund subsidy, and we will work with chinese hospital. and so currently their contract is, has an annual value of about $10 million, and i will note that that contract is set to expire. i mean, we i don't recall when we started it, but it is set to expire on november 30th, and i think there will be an opportunity to revisit that contract as we get more information in the fall. but we did not assume that this that the full contract value would be eliminated out of our budget, and so we will, we so we will work with chinese in terms of what's appropriate once they are medicare, medicare certified, they are not necessarily limited only to our patients. and so i think we i think that's a conversation we'll be happy to have with them once they are certified. thank you. i mean, i think that the relationship that that existing contract has from transition from covid beds to skilled nursing beds to now subacute beds, and which the state assembly member phil tang has invested or has allocated $6

million so that they can really build out a subacute beds, like to see that continuing on. it's a need that the city has, and i like to see that partnership. burleson okay, the beilinson hearing is actually a state requirement. it's not a city requirement, but for any county proposed reduction that may have an impact to medical services, requires that there's a hearing that is held ed but prior to decision being made, and the posting requirements is we need to post 14 days before the actual hearing occurs. it does not, it's less material, like the time before the actual reduction are implemented in consultation with the city attorney, we've determined that should you, act on the proposed budget as is, there would be an impact. and that is sort of the action, quote unquote, decision that would be made that would

reduce services and so they have advised that we have a hearing at this time, despite the fact that the one portion that we do believe would have a medical service impact is around that $10 million, of cbo reductions at the very end we have in the past. and just for transparency and completeness, we have included, some of the, the, the outreach grants as well as cip, as there's a potential reduction, service reduction there. they do not technically fall under the requirements of ambulance and hearing because they're not medical services. that's overseen by a provider necessarily, but just for completeness and consistency with prior years, we have noted them and will be included in the hearing as well. so out of these three, three items for reduction . the healthy community grants for the sugary drink as well as the street violence intervention program, are technically the medical services reduction or technically not considered

medical services. when you have that very technical medical provider definition of it. understood. thank you. they alone would not have triggered a beilinson hearing, but we figured since we're having one, we should just, be consistent with our prior practice. thank you, thank you, thank you for all your work. thank you for the department of public health. we really appreciate it, all your work. and so with that, i believe that item eight does have a bla report. good afternoon, chair chan. members of the committee, dan gonter with the budget and legislative analyst's office. item eight is a proposed ordinance that would authorize the department of public health to bypass the competitive solicitation requirements of the administrative code. chapter 21 g. for the purpose of providing a one time grant to planned parenthood northern california. the grant would provide funding in an amount not to exceed 456,000 for up to a two year

term for security personnel at the planned parenthood in san francisco. as you might recall, on april 2023, the board of supervisors approved an ordinance authorizing the department of public health to award a $400,000 grant to planned parenthood without adhering to the competitive solicitation requirements. according to df staff. the grant will fund planned parenthood's ongoing contract with ludlow security, which provides planned parenthood with 2 to 3 guards six days a week for 8 to 12 hours per day. the agreement has a two year term that begins in april of next year. the agreement, includes reporting requirements regarding security incidents and personnel, and also includes training requirements for the guards. because this is consistent with prior board action, we do recommend approval of the proposed ordinance and we're available for any questions. thank you. thank you, and we have done this previously, with with the with planned parenthood, contract, waiver.

and we have granted this very similar, grant grant waiver as well as the grant itself, to support planned parenthood that actually not only facing threats in san francisco, but also nationwide, so with that, colleagues, i would like to, to, move item seven through ten to full board with recommendation and second by supervisor walton. thank you. and, a roll call, please. and on that motion to forward the ordinances and items seven through nine, ten. yes. and the resolution and item ten. i'm sorry. yes, to the, july 9th, full board with a positive recommendation. vice chair mandelman mandelman. i member

melgar. melgar i member walton. walton i member. peskin peskin. absent chair. chan i chan i, i neglected to say that it was moved by yourself and seconded by, member walton, but we do have four eyes with member peskin absent. thank you. and the motion passes. and with that, we will go to department of homelessness and supportive housing. okay. are you ready? and yes. while our, our capacity is in flux right now, for those standing in the chamber, if you could find

any daylight in the benches. and, kindly have a seat. thank you much. and, and while they're getting ready. oh, i'm going to call item 11 and 12 as well, so you can, in your presentation, you can actually prepare for that, in one swoop. yes. items 11 and 12. item 11 is an ordinance reallocating approximately 13.7 million in unappropriated earned interest revenues from the our city our home fund to allow the city to use such revenues from the homelessness gross receipts tax for certain types of services to address homelessness. temporary, temporarily suspending the limit on funding for short term rental subsidies, and finding that these changes are necessary to achieve the purposes of the our city, our home fund pursuant to the business and tax regulations. code item 12 is a resolution approving the fiscal years 2024 to 2025 and 2025 to 2026. expenditure plan for the department of homelessness and

supportive housing fund. madam chair. thank you, mr. clerk and we here we have department of homelessness and supportive housing. good afternoon, chair chan. and committee members, i'm shireen mcspadden, the director of the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and i just want to thank you in advance. and retro, respectively, for your cooperation and your work with us on this budget, this presentation is designed to address the chair's instructions and questions, including the department's mission and objectives, how the budget allocations help achieve our mission and objectives, the department's performance measures staff thing. we've shared a detailed organizational chart with the chair and how the department has responded to the mayor's budget instructions, new investments and budget reductions. so i want to start with local and national context

related to homelessness to help frame our budget discussion. homelessness cannot be discussed outside the context of our affordable housing crisis. the average hourly wage needed to afford a one bedroom apartment in san francisco is over $51 an hour. the current minimum wage is $18 an hour. given this, it is no wonder that we continue to see a rise in the need for deep affordable housing and homeless services in terms of the state and national context. between 2019 and 2023, the us saw a 15% increase in homelessness, california saw a 20% increase, while san francisco saw a much more modest increase of 4. we get a lot of pushback from the public and others saying that the city spends upwards of $700 million on homelessness annually , but we still have a homelessness crisis in our community. and to the committee and the public, i want to

encourage you to look at the homelessness data within the context of the country's affordable housing crisis. doctor margot kushel, one of the leading thinkers and researchers on homelessness, recently estimated that if it were not for the incredible investments that san francisco makes in addressing homelessness, we would have seen a spike in about 30% over the last two years, rather than the modest increase that we did see. we recently conducted our 2024 point in time count and we've seen some changes in the homelessness crisis. there are 13% fewer people sleeping on the streets today than there were in 2020, the lowest it's been in about 20 years. i'm sorry, ten years more people experiencing homelessness in san francisco are indoors than ever before. these data points demonstrate that our shelter and housing strategies are working. since 2018, san francisco has significantly increased the capacity of the local homelessness response system, including expanding shelter capacity by 60,

permanent supportive housing by 24, and scattered sites supportive housing by 299. since fiscal year 2018, the city has rehoused 15,426 people out of homelessness and into housing solutions. the city's housing placement rates have also significantly improved. between 2019 and 2023. the city increased the number of people who moved into housing by over 100. despite these significant investments, improvement and positive outcomes, our community is still seeing an increase in homelessness due largely to an increase in the number of people falling into homelessness. we estimate that over the course of the year, for every one person, we resolve homelessness for, three more people become homeless. we also have seen a dramatic increase in family homelessness in people living in their vehicles, and we are beginning to address these

challenges with our proposed investments in this year's budget. so despite the pressing need we see on our streets and in our shelters, we also want to highlight the successes of the past year. together with our provider partners, we have prevented over 1330 households from falling into homelessness, and we have supported over 3650 to move into stable housing. home by the bay. our citywide strategic plan will lead the objectives and priorities of the department over the next five years. home by the bay articulates the five bold goals for our community, and we are moving forward on on all five in order to achieve goal two of reducing racial disparities in the system, we are taking an intersectional approach to program design, data analysis, and outcomes of each of our program areas to ensure that we are enhancing housing justice throughout our system of care, we are also providing a series of intersectional trainings for

hscps and provider staff to improve our fluency in housing justice and to ensure better outcomes for people of color served by our system of care. to reach the goals of the plan, the city must expand the homelessness response system and we must implement implement the plan's core initiative, which are outlined on this slide. measuring and improving performance of the homelessness response system is a key contingent of reaching our goals. to do that, we are utilizing a new performance measurement plan that guides how we track performance and use that data to monitor system achievements. the performance measures included in the plan will be reflected in all of our contracts as we move through our multi-year year procurement plan. for example, we will be making uniform the outcome objectives and performance metrics across program types. additionally, we will be able to measure system level outcomes such as the time from assessment

to housing placement and the flow through our system of care. more accurately, we are working closely with our commission, our providers and people experiencing homelessness to finalize these performance metrics, and we will be reporting on these publicly going forward. we also measure our annual performance through our through the comptroller's office's performance metrics. i won't go into detail on these as you can find them in the fiscal year 24 to 26 budget book. however i wanted to note that hsrr is projected to meet or exceed all metrics for fiscal year 23 to 24, and then again, just highlighting here that hsrr is exceeding our performance measures. and now i would like to hand it over to our my deputy director of communications and legislative affairs, emily cohen, and we've got several staff here from our exec team

and our management team to help answer any questions after our presentation is over. thank you. good afternoon, chair chan and members of the committee. emily cohen, deputy director at the department of homelessness. i'm going to be going over some of the highlights of our budget. as you can see in the chart here, the mayor's proposed budget for this coming fiscal year and next includes $846.8 million in year one, going down to 677.1 million in year two for the department of homelessness. our overall budget is growing on a one time basis by about 133 million, or almost 5, due to prop c fund balance, fund balance, as well as state one time state revenue. you'll see a one time $14 million increase. in general fund support in fy 2425, which

speaks to a few things. the mayor's budget instructions asked us to reduce ongoing general fund each year, as well as the contingency and that would have been for about $27 million, with an additional 13 million in contingency. we've looked very hard at our spending rate and programs that have not yet gotten off the ground and reappropriated some of those general funds to support this year's budget. the balance is really the feeling the impact of the covid be increase for nonprofits that was put into place last year, but not yet added to the budget. in the second year of our budget, you'll see it dips down to below the current level at 677 million. most of that change is due to one time fund balance falling off over at the second. over the two year budget. and again, this is particularly prop c and state one time resources. you will see some reductions, general fund reductions in our budget that i'll walk through

briefly. we have about 8.5 million in general fund reductions that help us reach that helped us to reach our target. and again, this is mostly safe contract savings from previous year. we have three a $3.5 million reduction in the homeless outreach team over two years. and while there are multiple street response teams in sf, the homeless outreach team is uniquely positioned to move people off the street. in the last fiscal year, the homeless outreach team conducted over 2000 housing assessments conducted 2400 shelter placements and moved 85 people directly from the street into housing. the homeless outreach team also does case management for people who are living unsheltered. and last year, 72% of hot's 200 person caseload moved into person into permanent housing. so these are some of the things that are at risk as we think about cuts going forward. 22, the an

additional cut we have in our budget is a 22.7% reduction in the cost of doing business funding for nonprofit organizations. this is a citywide reduction, but has significant impact on our providers. last fiscal year, this board and the mayor invested significantly in our front line staff to help increase wages and keep pace with inflation. and so, this will be felt by our providers and then finally, the final reduction in general fund resources in our department is the cut of four positions that were previously approved but not yet filled in. our department. we do have some really good news in our budget and some really exciting new investments. in terms of families, i was before this board not very long ago for a really intense hearing on family homelessness and the increases we're seeing, and very pleased to be able to share, 50,

$50.1 million investment in family homelessness. that's in the mayor's proposed budget. and this includes shelter and housing. the proposal, which we call safer families, includes $23.8 million to fund 130 new rapid rehousing subsidies for families, an additional 9.9 million for 50 new rapid rehousing subsidies for young adult headed families. and when i say rapid rehousing, what i mean is time limited rental assistance, where tenants rent a unit in the private market with at least two years of support. but we have the ability to continue to support them for up to five years based on their unique needs. we also are investing 4.8 million in shallow subsidies for families, and for an 11.6 million in new hotel vouchers that are already being deployed to help provide

immediate shelter for homeless families. as young adults are also receiving a significant investment in this year's budget , we are proposing $32.5 million investment over the two years to provide 235 rapid rehousing subsidies, 50 long term ongoing subsidies for young adults and $5 million to acquire a new property for justice involved young adults. and this is part of a public private partnership with the just home project, macarthur foundation and the urban institute. and we're really excited about this investment. we do have trailing legislation that was called with our budget item. and in order to make the initiatives that i just discussed come to fruition, we need to move forward. item number 11, which is an ordinance that allows the city to

partially or to sorry to reappropriate state funding. that is interest prop c interest to reappropriate it for our family shelter and housing and that like i said before you today we do have a minor amendment that i'm happy to read into the record. and when the chair thinks that's most appropriate. do you want to highlight that while we have a balanced budget that maintains the additional 1000 shelter beds that we have funded over the last several years, over the next two fiscal years, in year three, we will see a significant drop if one time state funds are not renewed. so while we're looking pretty good for the next two years, in year three, we do have about a $63 million gap that could dramatically impact our shelter portfolio. if those funds are not secured. and

lastly, i want to talk briefly about staffing. i know this has been an important conversation that i've had with many of you. the department of homelessness and supportive housing has a total of 160 funded fte, and i've submitted we've submitted a full organizational chart as part of the file. we have been doing a significant amount of hiring. we have 93 hires to date this fiscal year, and we've reduced our vacancies down to 32 as of june, which is actually updated from what we shared with the bla in may and you'll see that the bulk of the vacancies are in our programs division, which is our largest division. and of those, the majority are on our direct service team. this is a clinical team that works directly in supportive housing. so i did already mention one component of our trailing legislation, which is the our city, our home legislation. and this will allow us to reappropriate the accrued interest to family shelter and

housing as well as lifting the 12% cap on time limited rental assistance within the ordinance. the second piece of trailing legislation, which i believe is item 12, is the hsh fund. and this is a fund that we are required to pass annually. it supports it's over $20 million in funding each year from the human services agency, through the county adult assistance program, over to our department, to support the housing component of that benefit. and we submit this annually as part of our budget process. thank you. thank you. and item 11 has a budget and legislative analyst report. thank you. chair chan. item 11 is a proposed ordinance that would allow the city to repurpose up to $13,676,000 of

interest earned on the homeless gross receipts tax fund balance in fiscal year 2425 for shelter and family housing revenues from the homeless. gross receipts tax established by the november 2018 prop c must be allocated to specific populations and programs. amendments to the homeless gross receipts tax are subject to board of supervisors approval by a two thirds vote in july of last year, the board of supervisors approved an ordinance that allowed use of up to 16,360,000 in interest earnings to fund programing outside the typical population and program requirements. according to h. h finance staff, the proposed spending is part of a larger $47.2 million spending plan to provide to provide shelter and housing for families, known as the safer families initiative, as described on page six of our report, the one time spending is intended to address an increase

in unsheltered family homelessness, which increased from 27 families in the 2022 point and point in time count to 143 families in the preliminary 2024 point in time count. exhibit one on page six of our report shows the sources and uses of the proposed spending. we do consider approval of the proposed ordinance to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors, and i'm available for any questions. thank you. thank you. and, i don't see any name on the roster yet, vice chair mandelman. well, this actually might be kind of a basic question, but, but i don't know the answer to it, so i'm going to ask, which is how did the how did the dollar figure in item 11 get determined? is that the amount of interest accrued over the last year, or is that the cost of the programs that, that the department wants to fund? thanks for the question,

supervisor mandelman. that is the amount of interest accrued and projected. so if this is the model of we're we're comfortable doing this override for interest. this is the maximum. that's the cap. yes. got it. estimate comes from a revenue estimate okay. thank you. and it's an interest generate one fiscal year. cool thank you, i don't see any name on the roster at the moment. let's go to public comment on these two items. oh, do you care if i may? we do have a minor non-substantive amendment that i want to make sure it gets onto the record for item number 11 on page four, line seven, the we need to amend to reflect that that the dollar amount should be 4,411,000. instead of 4,412,000. thank you, thank you. that's page four, line seven. thank you. and then with that, let's go to public comment on item 11

and 12. yes, we are now opening public comment for item 11, which is, the ordinance regarding the our city, our home fund and item 12, which is a resolution on the department of homelessness and supportive housing fund. if we have any members of the public wish to address this committee, i will start your your time at one minute. thank you. hi, jennifer friedenbach coalition on homelessness, we're really happy about the fact that the mayor is , did these changes in terms of trying to address the doubling of family homelessness in san francisco. however, you know, we continue to be concerned that these are short term investments and not permanent solutions, and we also want to just clarify, there's been a little bit of confusion around, what is being proposed, we have $20 million that, was out of the oco fund for five year subsidies. that

should stay as five year subsidies. and the additional money that the mayor put in on the interest, part of it's going to hotels, and part of it's going to 2 to 5 year subsidies. we want to make sure that there's full transparency to families, that they're able to get extensions to five years if they're going to be returning to homelessness, and making sure that's part of the trailing legislation. thank you. thank you much. jennifer friedenbach, next speaker, please. hi, supervisors. i'm selena. i'm also here with the coalition on homelessness, we're in support in lifting the cap. but like jennifer friedenbach stated, it's really imperative to include clear language in the 2 to 5 year subsidy allocation that communicates to families the possibility of extension so that families that are at risk of returning to homelessness can have a sense of stability and reassurance. it's really important that families understand this opportunity and the ability to extend as it allows time to become. it allows

time for families to become more stable, and it's critical that we are committed to making this process as clear and as accessible as possible. thank you. thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker, please. good afternoon, marnie regan, larkin street youth services co-chair of hesba. hesba stands in solidarity with homeless families. we completely support this trailing legislation and also want to echo the importance of transparency and clarity with these families, many of whom are newcomer families with small children who are living in trauma and uncertainty on a daily basis, if they could have clarity and transparency and understand the stability, to and the extent to which that stability lasts, that would go a long way to stabilizing these families long term. thank you. thank you much, marty regan, next speaker, please. hi. my name is jessica hernandez, and i'm here in support of the, more permanent solutions for families

. you know, we want to prevent families from from returning to homelessness. and i also wish that there was a more transparent, language when it comes to the five, five year subsidy so that families, if they are, about to become homeless again, they know that there's an extension available. thank you. and thank you. next speaker, please, my name is june bug, and i stand in solidarity with the coalition on homelessness as somebody who was born and raised here, who went through homelessness as a child, we definitely need to have clear communication with families, and we need to have permanent solutions so that we're not getting placed in housing. that's temporary. myself, right now, i still struggle trying to keep my family housed in san francisco. so i stand in solidarity with coalition on homelessness. please make sure we help our families stay housed. thank you. thank you much, junebug. next speaker. hi. hi. good afternoon, dear

supervisors. my name is miguel carrera. i'm working in the coalition on homelessness, so i really want you guys supporting the legislation. you know, for five years subsidy. it's really important for us. it's really important for the families because they can give you the opportunity to not become homeless again. so in the past, we now give you the five years of the families and the reason we have so many families against homeless. and then innocent struggle. so we need to we need to make sure that this legislation is passed and is approved and supporting the families. also, i want to mention one more thing. if it's possible in the future, open this window for the families because we never know trauma and issues the families happens and passing and children's we they need the housing and some point they need the permanent housing as the reason we advocate and we want to make sure this time this legislation is passed and give you the five years to the

families housing. thank you. thank you much. miguel cabrera. and if we have no further speakers, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. seeing no public comment, no more public comments. public comment is now closed. and, colleagues, i, i guess i do have one questions and if we can just clarify from hsh about the cap of five year subsidies between, the up to five year subsidies versus the 2 to 3, 2 to 5 year cap, but vice chair mandelman, do you want to go first about your questions or. no. okay. thank you for the question, chair chan. so the cap and the original. our city, our home legislation requires that no more than 12% of the housing fund be spent on short term rental assistance, and they

define that as up to five years. so we are lifting the cap to make this additional investment in family housing. and the way, the way we're structuring the design of the program is that everyone gets an initial two years, and then we're able to continue to provide the safety net up to five if families need it. if families achieve economic stability prior to that and can move off the subsidy, then this would allow them to do that as well. great, because right now i am looking at the language itself on page three. this is the legislation itself where the item number 11 and that on page three, line eight, starting there. and then you know that the city must meet the crisis where it is currently most acute and here.by approved for the next fiscal year, only a lifting of the cap on short term rental subsidies of five years or less.

so the language that i'm reading is actually saying you could actually have short term rental subsidy up to five years or five years or less. but but my assumption is that the two year cap or 2 to 5 year cap is really internal, or it's really determined by the hsh. i mean, the legislation itself doesn't doesn't written that way. correct the 12 the cap is on the percentage of the dollars that can be spent on short term housing, not the time limit set on on that housing. that's an operational detail, but it's the 12% that is being lifted, 12% of all of the housing funds. i okay, vice chair mandelman. thank you, chair chan, thank you for the presentation and for your for your work. i wonder wondering if we can just touch on where we are on prop c dollars overall and where we are

on sort of the strategic plan kind of vision for the next four years, you hinted at it, in the chart that showed what happens with shelter, the, that kind of falls off a cliff in three years. the plan, the strategic plan envisions a fairly, significant expansion of all levels of response and are we on track for that? i mean, we've got it done this year. it looks like we're meeting the goals this year, but where are we with the prop c dollars and where are we with the strategic plan going out over the next four years? great. thank you. supervisor mandelman. you know, last year's budget made a really strong beginning to achieving our strategic plan goals. we set the goal of opening over 1000 new shelter beds. and i think we got

somewhere pretty close to about 600 in just year one. so then this budget also adds resources to shelter. so we're getting quite far along in our shelter goal, even by just year two of the strategic plan, now we need to be really mindful of losing state dollars because we will backtrack on our strategic plan by a lot. if we lose, not next year, but the year after. if we lose state funding the other area. it's also important to note that we've we are at our cap when it comes to shelter for prop c, the our city, our home limits the amount that can be spent on shelter. we have spent all of it on shelter and really relying on state revenue. now to operate shelter housing. we are making slightly less progress on housing, although we do have about 500 new units coming online through the losp pipeline over the next two years. and about i think it's about 400 units in subsidies coming online as well. so really excited about

that. and prevention. we continue to build on what we've invested. last year. so i mean, so the shelter side is kind of its own set of problems because we don't really have a funding source for it. we are relying on on the state, that state money seems uncertain, prop c allows us to go to go heavily on in these other areas, however, and so are we keeping are we on track for what we've been, what we sort of what we projected for the it looked to me like from that chart, like we are from this this last year, we are doing what we wanted to. is there the money going forward to do what we projected we wanted it to do for the next four years? i would say we're we're on track in year one and two of our strategic plan implementation without ongoing state revenue, we will not continue to meet our shelter

goals. we will be capped out. what about the other stuff? the other stuff? you know, we will continue to move forward. i think we're doing pretty strong on prevention in a little softer on housing, because we've been using a lot of the state funds that we've been getting through hap for shelter because of there's because of the limited other sources for shelter. so with our projected revenues are do we currently have a path to our five year strategic plan goals around the non shelter items, we do not have all of the funding needed. no all right. thank you. thank you i don't see any name on the roster, i think i have said this before. i'm going to say it again. i think generally speaking, for all city departments, what we're looking for is ftes, vacancy contracts, and performances. i think we

will go with the same as with the department of homelessness and supportive housing, with recommendations and conversation with budget and legislative analysts. thank you for this, i don't have any other questions for the legislation as well. so, and where to go to public comments, colleagues, if i don't see any, questions about the legislation, i'd like to move to both, to full board with recommendations. shamann second by supervisor walton, with that, a roll call, please, madam chair, there wasn't amendment offered on, on item. sorry. the motion will be to amend, item 11, on page four as the dollar amount amended by department of homelessness and supportive housing and then with the amended version of this legislation of item number 11, moving both 11 as amended, and

12 to full board with recommendation. yes second by supervisor walton. okay. on that motion by chair chan, seconded by member walton, that the ordinance and item 11 be amended as so offered by the department and read into the record and to forward the ordinance. and item 11 and the resolution to item 12, to the july 9th, full board with the positive recommendation, item 11, as amended. vice chair mandelman mandelman i. member. melgar. melgar i member. walton. walton i member. peskin. peskin absent chair. chan i chan i we have four eyes with member. peskin. absent. thank you. and the motion passes. next we have and not the least definitely sounds like it's last. department of early childhood. oh there's a plot for permanent early

childhood. and with that, could we also call item 13? yes. item 13 on his an ordinance modifying the base land. pardon? item number 13 is an ordinance modifying the baseline funding requirements for early care and education programs and fiscal years 2024 to 2025 through 2027 to 2028 to enable the city to use interest earned from the early child care and education commercial rents tax for those baseline programs. to the members of the public, public, public comment has not been called. so we are still in the middle of discussions. so if you can have a seat while we have said discussions. sorry. just want to say we have yet to call the public comment. i think we all are a bit excited, aren't

we? how about public comments? i feel you. good afternoon. thank you. chair so, so sorry for the interruption, director mesquita. but if we could have if we could have all members of the public seated while we have our discussions, please. and then we will line and then i will ask people to line up when public comment is called. thank you. okay. let's go. thank you. vice director mosquito. good afternoon. thank you. chair and supervisor chan. supervisor melgar, walton and mandelman, i'm ingrid mesquita. i'm the

director for the department of early childhood and i'm grateful for the opportunity to provide you today with an overview of our proposed budget for the next two fiscal years, as based on the mayor's and budget instructions, as well as supervisors. chan's instructions as well. we're going to we're going to provide, several information around not only our performance measures, but also, possible trailing legislation towards the end of our presentation, next slide. these are department is a new, relatively new department. as you know, we merged with first five san francisco, this is really our second year in operation. and we are dedicated to our babies, our youngest children, for them to be safe, healthy and to really have joyful childhoods in san francisco, our vision is that every child deserves the best start in life, and that our city

should be a great place to raise a family. and i know this personally because i have done that, and with that, we know that it takes a lot in order to do that. and that's why our department was created to make sure that together with family and community, our systems of supports are there to ensure that all children in san francisco have a nurturing, healthy and educational foundation. and as part of our performance measures, we really do take to heart what our impact is, and we're establishing a robust foundation for the future success of all san francisco children. that is our ultimate goal. that is our vision to make sure that we are providing not only universal access, but that we also do it within a target universalism approach, which is targeted services for very specific populations. next slide, and very quickly we have we do have a logic model that informs our performance measures, what we're looking at

is to ensure that all children, once they are, are, have the foundation of not only early learning but family support and that they are cared for in really quality settings, that we're looking in quality settings does look at children's health and well-being, as well as families well-being. that are our outcomes really is about school readiness or kindergarten readiness that when children arrive at kindergarten, they are socially, emotionally, cognitively, and developmentally , have the support for school success that not only children are in excellent health, but also mental health as well, and that we're looking at this through again through a lens of equity and quality. and that our bold vision is that race will not be a predictor for children's success or outcomes. in san francisco. next slide and we're able to do this because again, being able to look at holistically children and their

families. and in the communities we've been able to see actually recent progress, that gives us a lot of opportunity and hope and also the ability to be able to see how our impact is looking at directly outcomes, especially for children of color, so over the last few years, we've been doing school readiness, assessments, actually since two as early as 2007. and we have longitudinal studies that prove that once you arrive behind, sadly, you stay behind and so our mission really is to make sure that children are arriving not only ready for kindergarten, but that also they have all the skills necessary to be able to succeed as part of life course. and we're able to see now that children, both in the groups of which have always been the desperate sort of outcomes that we have seen, especially for latino and african american students, now we're starting to see sort of an uptake uptick of their school readiness. and

we're really, really proud of this, because that means that with all of these investments that we are doing, we're actually able to make an impact on children's lives. next slide. and so as we celebrate our first year, besides the really encouraging and wonderful news that we're looking at making sure that children are arriving school ready, we're also looking at the entire portfolio of our work and over the last year, we're able to provide more than 10,000 children across the city, who are now eligible for free early care and education, we've added close to 70 new early care and education settings to our network, we're also able to look at, facility development for new spaces that need to be expanded. we've actually reduced by 72%

what used to be called the waitlist for early care and education, and over 150% of new spaces have been created for infant and toddler alone. so with that, we are. not only are we excited, but we also have a lot more to do. but we can't do this without really the early care and educators in our field. and that's why last year, when we rolled out the compensation funding, we were able to see immediately what that impact makes in actually the livelihoods of educators and an average of 12,000, dollars is actually pretty good in terms of increasing the wages of early educators and that's just the average, and part of that also includes making sure that we have retention, but we're also attracting, early educators into this field. and, last but not least, we are also engaging

parents in their children's school readiness. next slide. so we have this presentation broken up into a couple of sections. the first one being early learning, and also children, family and family well-being. both of these tenants are really core to children's school readiness, with that we're going to go into the budget presentation in terms of how those numbers look like for each one of those two core tenants. and finally, again, with our trailing legislation. so starting with early learning and again, super excited, with the mayor's announcement that the time is for families is now, families cannot wait. you are only a baby once. and so we're making sure that we're doing the largest expansion, actually, in the nation, and we're super proud of that. san francisco is has always been this trailblazer

around what we can do for children and families. and this year is no exception. we are increasing eligibility to families earning up to 150% of the area median income, which translates roughly to around $225,000 for a family of four, and that pretty much covers almost two thirds of our children's population between, birth to five. over the course of the next two years, we'll be using $120 million to add into the child care subsidy, and financial support for families. and in addition to that, we're also doing a pilot, which is in response, to the need of working families who have who need what is called out odd hour care, but really looking at ways of being able to extend care beyond your traditional 8 to 5 model, and with that, it helps both,

families who are working in the odd hour sort of sector, but also helps us be able to build, again, sort of a robust system of early care and education, not only for the people who are are the early educators, but also for the parents who are working these nontraditional hours. so this level of expansion further puts san francisco as a leader in the country to build towards a universal child care access. next slide. for the past 20 years, at least, since i've been involved in this, in city government, starting with our universal preschool system, we've been building slowly but steadily, our universal access. in 2005, universal preschool was established by the voters of san francisco. and since then, we've been working towards expanding not only the access, starting

with four year olds. now we're building that into access for birth to three and birth to five. and that means that we have to be very vigilant of how we do this, san francisco, again, was the first in the nation to be able to roll out a comprehensive and locally funded early care and education, system. we provide now, access on an unprecedented level for families in the city, and we are going to even do that even more, so as our focus has been for preschoolers over the last 20 years, we're now building the same system for birth to three, and not only for birth to three, but also for middle class families. and again, this is the only place in the country, that we're able to do that. and we are extremely proud that we're able to do that in a thoughtful planful and very designed way. next and just to give you a

snapshot, that our enrollment has been increasing over the years, even within the pandemic, we know we had to go through public health guidelines, and i know some of the educators had to go through additional training and, and, you know, and investments were made to make sure that we kept our system whole, as other places across the country, they were closing down child care centers. we were actually building more. and so, as you can see in this chart, we are growing the number exponentially from year to year, and we expect to do even more in the next two years. and with that, it shows our roadmap for the future, fueling the future growth of early care and education includes, building new child care facilities, ensuring that those childcare facilities are quality. not only the new ones, but also existing. we have many children in care and we want to make sure that children

are in these beautiful, inspiring and nurturing places where they spend most of their day. so improving the quality of existing sites is just as important as building new ones. and we can't do this without our workforce. so ensuring that teachers have educational pathways that have economic mobility and that we're ensuring the dignity of their work as they're focusing on infant and toddler care. next slide. the second tenant of our work and is equally as important, is child and family well-being. while creating access for children is important and for families as well, because they need to work how they spend their days and how they actually are cared for. matters as as just as much, including what types of supports that families have, not only for early care and education, but in their community. we have, as

first five for many years and again with the merger of now, between first five and what used to be called the office of early care and education, we were able to really have a comprehensive and unified vision for how we want our children to grow, develop and make sure that they have all the resources available to them. and with that, we want to make sure that we are identifying children very early on for any kind of special health concerns or developmental concerns. and so this year, and as the following years follow, we are really investing in universal screening early identification and intervention and ensuring that we have specialized services to improve early childhood outcomes. we're promoting citywide universal screening and play, because that's very important when you're when you're a baby and you're a preschooler, that that uses a mobile technology where

parents are getting tips on the phone on through their mobile app, that we're able to be able to track children's progress and their milestones, and making sure that we have a care coordinated system for them, and with that makes sure that we're doing this through a cross sector approach. so we're expanding our inclusive practices not only in the classroom, but in different settings of where thousands of san francisco children are already with identified disabilities and we're also looking at other funding sources to help, like medi-cal, to ensure that we're securing new fund and simplifying services for families and increasing access to covered benefits to better serve our young children and their families. next. in addition to that, if that wasn't enough, we are actually supporting early childhood mental health consultation in in in many of our classrooms across

the city. and again, this is to make sure that we're looking at children holistically, we're ensuring that children's social emotional development is supported that of theirs and their families and the people who care for them, and with that, we also are funding this would be the third cycle of family resource centers across the city, we've increased funding from the prior, rfp that we released, close to five years ago to this new rfp, where we're now funding at $18 million, which is considered the base for 27 family resource centers across the city, again, connecting families to services and resources across our beautiful, beautiful san francisco. so they can develop, with their children, these wonderful relationships and ensure that families have the resources that they need. this is an initiative that's jointly funded with dcf and h.s.a. okay.

now we're going to get to the actual dollars. so for our budget summary, in order to do all these wonderful things and continue them and grow them, our budget for the next two years, it's broken down under two divisions, one in early care and education and the other one under children and families commission. and this is because of state statute. we're required to separate our tobacco tax that is administered by first five san francisco, also known as the children and families commission . our total department budget under the department of early childhood, which combines these two divisions, is 336.6 million. as you can see, most of our funding is actually local funding with baby prop c or proposition c, being 56% of our revenue, followed by the public education and enrichment fund. we also get a modest, revenue

from child care developer fees, from our general fund fund balance interest and our proposition ten, which is tobacco, state tobacco tax allocated to our county and work order recoveries. and we also have federal and state grants that support this work, and through medi-cal for next for the next two years. we are estimating to begin with half $1 million. next slide for our uses . most of this funding, if not all, actually goes out the door through community based grant making, practically 85% of it. goes to different services early early care and education, family support, child health, all the things that i've described before, very minimal goes towards, actually staffing and operation runs, and 15% based on

baby prop c required legislative requirement goes back to the general fund. so both our sources and uses match for the next two years. and as requested, we provided a detailed staffing plan and chart to supervisor chan's office, and this is the sort of higher rolled up level of our organizational structure at the department of early childhood, we started in fiscal, in, prior fiscal. well current fiscal year, because we're still in it, we really have been working very hard to fill all our positions as we were actually simultaneously working and implementing many of the programs and initiatives, and we are in the process of hiring ten employees as, as, as we speak right now. so we're very proud that we have very minimal vacancies in our department. and we're expected to post and remain, fill the remaining

vacancies, beginning of the fiscal year. thanks. and per the instructions, our general fund savings, as you can see in next fiscal year, is 1.3 1,380,000. in general fund savings, and we are like, last fiscal year, the proposal is to credit interest from our baby c reserve or fund balance of 6.5 million. and also our pif carry forward, which is the public education enrichment fund for a total of 13,644,577 for fiscal year 24, 25 and 2526. it increases slightly to 25,000,108 564. next slide. so,

based on the mayor's budget instructions, we have we've slightly exceeded our 10% budget instructions, although there is trailing legislation, and there's the good news is that we are not reducing any services as you as our in our presentation earlier. we're actually in expansion mode. again, this is really historic in san francisco and in the nation of being able to provide unprecedented access to children and families, and, you know, we're doing this because we've been, again, very planful we've been resourceful, we've been able to think about this as how this looks like in, in future years, we're increasing access services for the early learning san francisco, we have been in this current programmatic year, providing subsidies for families up to 110. ami next year, we're expanding that to 150, we're

asking very modestly for temporary fte again, to be able to manage the expansion, it is a lot of work behind the scenes to make sure that this goes flawlessly, and because we are expanding early learning san francisco, to approximately 6000 more children, and by this, we're offering substantial child care savings to low and middle income families, with more residents across the city being able to not only join the workforce, but also boosting the local economy and securing a brighter future for all. and lastly, this is part of the trailing legislation, which is the business tax regulation code , and for fiscal year, fiscal year 25, we're looking at local general fund baseline obligation of 93.8 million, which means a temporary modification to 2520

in fiscal year 2526 through fiscal year 2728, with no increases in the baseline, allowing using of our interest earned in the babies and families first fund towards baseline commitments and interest earned credits to baseline in fiscal year 24, 25 and 2526 to up to $16.9 million, and that concludes our presentation. thank you, i'm sure we have questions and conversation, but what i'm going to do is go to public comment and we'll come back for the discussion. thank you. and with that, let's go to public comment on item. oh wait i do have bla report. let's go to our report and then we'll go to public comments. my apologies. thank you. thank you chair chan. item 13 is a proposed ordinance that would allow the city to use interest earned on in the babies and families first fund to reduce early care and education

baseline spending requirements in the next four fiscal years. in addition, the proposed ordinance would halt growth in the baseline spending amount through fiscal year 20 2728 unless the city's financial condition improves. the early care and education commercial rents tax was authorized by voters in june 2018 with the passage of prop c. of the revenues, 15% is transferred to the general fund and 85% is deposited into the babies and families first fund and must be spent on early care and education. in proposition c also requires the city to maintain a baseline level of early care and education spending based on funding levels. in fiscal year 20 1718, and adjusting annually by the percent change in the city's aggregate discretionary revenues in july of 2023, the board of supervisors approved an ordinance that modified the early care and education baseline funding requirement in fiscal year 23, 24, and 2425, in two ways. the ordinance allowed

up to 20 million interest earned on fund balance in fiscal year 2324, and up to 10,000,000 in 2425. as a credit against early care education baseline spending. the 2023 ordinance also suspended growth in early care and education baseline spending amount in fiscal year 24, 25. exhibit one on page ten of our report shows the proposed change in the early care and education baseline spending in the. and we also note on page ten that in march of 2024, the joint report, projected general fund deficits that exceed 209 million per year through fiscal year 20 2728. so growth in the early care and education baseline would likely be suspended even without the proposed ordinance. the primary fiscal impact of the proposed ordinance is to reduce early care and education baseline spending by the amount of interest earned on the babies and families first fund balance. this reducing baseline spending requirements, results in savings

to the general fund. according to the mayor's budget office, the savings will be used to fund food access programs at the human services agency in ten of $10 million per year, and partially backfill nonprofit service provision funded by the department of children, youth and families. 11.3 million per year. we do consider approval of the proposed ordinance to be a policy matter for the board of supervisors, and i'm available for questions. thank you. thank you. and, i think let's go to public comment. i do realize our spanish translator, is actually up for release. and if we could be so kind to let the spanish speaking speakers to go first so that they can actually have interpretation, i would really, really appreciate it, do we have our speaking spanish speaking translator here? could you make the announcement so that people, spanish speakers can can know and las personas habla espanol? el pulpito.

can the spanish speakers raise your hand? español. por favor. la mano espanol. raise your hands and we can español. you can interpret the speaking primero. por favor. vengan hacia adelante. yes. if we could have our first speaker. first spanish speaker. yes, please. and then i'll start, i'll start there. time for one minute. no. and. and, gloria, you could actually use the other microphone just to. just in front of the laptop there. yes. thank you much. and, if mr.

clark could announce a one minute limit. yes and. yes, yes. once you begin and as the chair did instruct at the beginning of the meeting, each speaker will be allowed one minute for testimony. thank you much. that's it. buenas tardes. my name is jacqueline beltran. soy una educadora de la razon. por la estoy aqui es porque el ano pasado estuvimos aqui peleando por la no nos guitarron los fondos de la proposition se ahora estamos de nuevo aqui y es muy interesante para nosotros como proveedora siempre estar en el limbo. de qué es lo va a pasar con nuestros negocios, con nuestros ninos con nuestras familias y a la misma vez nos ponen, en la en la base de données de es para las mismas familias. la ayuda a la queue nos quieren quitar, por ejemplo, de los dos housing low income families y todo eso, entonces es muy frustrante estar en el mismo

lugar en vez de buscar fondos de otros lugares y no de las mismas familias, donde vienen el dinero . hi, my name is jacqueline beltran. i'm an educator and i'm here because last year we were fighting for our funds, not to get taken away from us from prop c. i'm here again today because it's very stressful living in limbo. we don't know what's going to happen to our businesses, to our kids, to our families. and we're on the sidewalk and then we're, along with our families, fearing that they're going to take away our, our funds, for example, they're taking them away, apparently, from the same families, like for housing. and it's very frustrating because we're all in the same place. thank you, miss jacqueline beltran. la proxima persona habla espanol, por favor . necesita traduction. gracias. buenas tardes. me nombre es el faro. soy una educadora infantil del condado de san francisco. el

dia de hoy. estoy por los fondos de nuestros ninos. el ano pasado estuvimos para pelear por la proposicion se el dia de hoy continua para seguir sirviendo a me comunidad ya nuestra familia q necesitan un nivel de vida estable a otros fondos q tocar y poder nosotros los fondos q son para cuidado infantil pensamos en nuestras familias, q estan en bajos ingresos y como pueden ayudar a estos ninos para tengan un futuro formado muy educacional. gracias thank you. okay. so good afternoon. my name is vera alfaro, and i'm also an educator in san francisco. i'm here today to advocate for the funds for our kids. last year we were here for prop c, and we're here again, one, to be able to serve our communities and our families because they need a stable, level of living and is

there another way you can use different funds, not the funds allocated for our children, especially our low income children. we want to help kids. and that's why we're here. okay. yeah hola. buenas tardes. my name is brenda arcilla. y soy proveedora infantil de el area del excelsior. a estamos aqui nuevamente in la lucha creci escuchar dicen y por lucha like no se hace. entonces aqui estamos un grupo del gremio de educadores de san francisco luchando porque esos fondos no nos los token los necesitamos no solo nosotros los necesitan las familias. esos ninos. nuestro cuidado. esperando una educacion de alta calidad y estamos aqui para ello. gracias por toda la ayuda e gracias por esa ayuda. no nos va a quitar, por favor.

good afternoon. my name is ben shields, and i'm a child care provider in excelsior. we're here again to fight for our children. so there's this old saying that if you don't try, you never know if it may have happened. so we're here again to fight. so our touched. our not touched. we need those funds. our kids need those funds so they can have access to high quality education. and i want to thank you for everything you have done. and because i'm sure you will not take our funds away . and thank you much for addressing this committee. next. speaker buenos tardes a todos son presents también a los supervisors cannot come present this me nombre es esperanza estrada e yo vivo en el distrito de excelsior e trabajado con ninos por mas de treinta anos. primero fui maestra en un centro y después de abril, me propio negocio espinoza las inversiones

propuestas en el cuidado infantil nos da mucho gusto. haciendo inversiones todavia nos falta mucho camino por recorrer y queremos juntos esta ordenanza proponer trasladar los fondos de baby prop. si para qué se utilizan para otros fines no aprobados por nosotros los votantes nos upon a esto y pedimos birx continua con esta ordenanza para permitir una mayor discussion, por favor. no token los fondos. gracias. hi. good afternoon to all the supervisors here and the ones that are not here, my name is esperanza estrada, and i'm here for from, excelsior district. i have worked with have been working with children for over 30 years, at a preschool center. and then i opened my own business. and the reason why here is because, well, we're heartened to see proposed investments in child care. we still have a long way to go. this ordinance proposed moving

baby prop c funding to be used for other purposes. that have not been approved by voters. therefore, we oppose this ordinance and ask it to be continued to allow further discussion. thank you much. next speaker. hello everyone. my name is elena ramirez. i am a family child care educator. for the last 20 years in district seven. well i'm here, the supervisors. i'm here to ask you to not let the mayor take more money from prop c. at this moment, we can afford to lose more money for the mayor. and probably for many of you believe that we have enough money. yet the reality is different. early home educators need health and retirement plans in place. my understanding is that in a reserve money, we have 800 million, which is not enough for all the needs in our field.

we need to have a reserve of at least 300 million. please do not let the mayor to take any more money from us. thank you. i'm english, spanish, anybody spanish or spanish? okay. all right. thank you. okay. thank you so much. hi. my name is tracy faulkner. i'm the program coordinator of the family resource center at city college of san francisco, and have been for the last 23 years, and i'm also part of the family service family service alliance, which used to be the family resource center alliance. so i'm with them as well. and i want to say that i think there's been incredible growth in the child care, services, but there's still gaps. and i know this because i work with families every day and i see the gaps. and one of the a lot of the gaps is like new families to san francisco or new immigrants. and the way they find out about it is through family resource

centers and the way they're we still need more quality, quality child care providers as well as centers to fill the need. and i and i know this and i want to make sure that we are supporting families such as the one at family, the family resource center at city college. and by the way, families now have priority registration at city college. and we now know there's about 4000 families, attending, credit classes at city college. and lisa expired under five years old. thank you. thank you much, tracy faulkner, for addressing this committee. and i will apologize in advance if i have to cut anybody off, but i am timing each speaker at one minute. oh, no. i speak real fast. okay. my name is rachel church, and i'm a parent leader of parent voice of san francisco. i'm a single low income mother and depend on subsidized child care. i'm receiving preventative cancer treatments and depend on the subsidized child care to attend my appointments. i'm from the mission district in stanford. others like me, who struggle to

earn a living wage to raise our children without subsidized child care. we cannot work to pay rent, bills, clothe and feed our children. taking millions from babysi to balance the budget for purposes outside of what the voters intended is not the right thing to do. the solution is to use the $50 million in reserves to balance the budget deficit. do not balance the budget on the backs of babies. thank you for your careful consideration in causing the least harm to those who need most help, but cannot speak for themselves. our babies. thank you much rachel church. next speaker. hello, my name is salaam jason. i'm from parent voices san francisco. i have two beautiful children, eight years old and seven years old. child care is essential for my family. in order to provide my family need. i'm here because i need child care. taking 50 million from bbc to balance the budget for purpose outside of what voters intend is not the right thing to do. use the 800 million in reserves to balance the budget on the backs of babies. thank you for your time and consideration. am i causing the

last harm to those who need most help but cannot speak for themselves? thank you and thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker. hi, my name is rj shaheed. i'm from parent voice of san francisco. keep your promise for bbc. hi. good afternoon to all the supervisors. my name is april young and i'm a mother of three and a parent, a proud parent, leader of parent voices. i was on the front line when trying to get baby prop c on the ballot. i was a top signature gatherer as a volunteer in san francisco, walking the streets, knocking on doors, talking to anyone that would listen. i spent numerous hours phone banking. my daughter was right by my side, calling voters and asking for support. san francisco citizens were hopeful of the promise of baby prop c. our babies need these funds and they deserve them. thank you for your careful consideration to those who cannot speak for themselves and for what baby prop was intended

for, and that's for our babies. thank you. thank you. next speaker. my name is nora from parent voices san francisco. please don't take away the $50 million from bbc because many children depend in survive off the money and won't survive as well without it. my name is mohammed shahid and i would just like to say that i'm in agreeance with everyone's, words up here, and we hope that you'll consider them seriously. thank you. thank you much. mohammad shaheed, next speaker. my name is rachel. bear with us. this is her first time i say hi. my name is rachel. help me. go ahead and say it. i'm help. say my name is rachel, i help you'll be fine. just please begin. i'm scared. she's scared. this is rachel and she wants to say please support

baby prop c. she says baby prop c will help her get the care that she needs. so her mom could also have respite care. her mom also has special needs. okay, thank you, rachel, for being brave. that's why we're here today, right? for rachel and all our children, i know for myself as a parent leader with parent voices, i'm very grateful for this time. i thank you very much for all the board of supervisors being here today. thank you for being a child care champion and also being a champion with baby prop c, we believe in baby props. we believe that baby prop c can help us move toward towards an equitable child care system. it can help us move towards a universal child care system. i cannot express my enough how necessary it is that we have the baby props. when i couldn't find child care, frc was there for me so that i could attend college with my son,

because of child care was able to. it was a struggle, but i was able to find childcare for my daughter with special needs. please support baby prop c, please don't take funds from it. we have so much money in the reserves that we can use. we shouldn't have to use money on the balance on the backs of our babies. this is not okay. california keeps child care working. thank you and thank you to the both of you. next speaker, please. okay. good. good afternoon. my name is elia fernandez, and i'm with parent voices in san francisco. and. i had a hard time for access for childcare, but about, my grandkids couldn't wait for child care. and please keep the funds in baby prop c, prop c cups to equitable and child care

and also keep san francisco working. so please just don't take away prop c money to keep it there for all the children. and i know parents have grandkids and they need it for their care. and i want to thank also all the supervisors, especially melgar. and i want to thank everybody. thank you. thank you much. ellie fernandez, next speaker. good afternoon. my name is quinn. i'm with, as a parent. voices. you know, i'm a stay at home mom because my child is always with me. in fact, she's with me right now, you know, taking a nap in her stroller. so so, i'm here to say that we need childcare because childcare keeps america working. please support, baby props fund.

thank you so much for your time. thank you. and thank you, wen, for addressing this committee. next. speaker good afternoon, supervisors walton connie chan, and melgar. my name is maria luster. i'm the organizer of parent voices. our babies cannot speak for themselves, so we are here to speak for them, for over the last almost 30 years before baby prophecy passed, we were fighting for crumbs. we ask our legislators in the state and the city to create new source of revenue, but they do not want to pass a tax as legislators because that's not very popular with voters. so we did a voter initiative. we passed baby props. so now we hope that you make the right decision with this funding and, respect the will of the voters. this baby property is intended for child care and we need to balance the

budget just using the reserves, we learned that there's 800 million in reserves, that we can use, that let's not use baby props to balance our budget. thank you. and thank you for your hard work. we know you're having a tough job doing this. thank you much, maria. next speaker, please. yes. pull it down and speak right into it. thank you much. thank you. okay good afternoon supervisors. my name is victoria. i am nine years old and i live in san francisco district three child care is key to san francisco economic with all child care and baby prop c parents cannot work our family child care and center small business owners cannot keep their doors open and our city cannot be as great as we

know it can be. please say baby prop c funding for child care. thank you. that's how it's done. thank you much, victoria. good afternoon. supervisor. my name is chloe and i live in san francisco. district 11. child care is a key to san francisco economic withou child care and baby prop c parents cannot work our family child care and center. small business owners cannot keep their doors open, and our city cannot be as great as we know it can be. please save baby prop c funding for child care. thank you. thank you much, chloe. next speaker please. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is samantha and i live in san francisco. district three. child care is key to san francisco's economic

without child care. i'm baby props. parents cannot work our family child care and center. small business owners cannot keep their doors open, and our city cannot be as great as we know it can be. please say baby prop c funding for child care. thank you. thank you much, samantha. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is sharon and i live in san francisco. district three. child care is key to san francisco and economic without child care and baby props. parents cannot work. our family child care and center small business owners cannot keep their doors open, and our small city cannot be as great as we know it can be. please save

baby prop, seek funding for child care. thank you and thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker, please. hi, supervisors. my name is faith sanchez, and i'm here alongside the community. while we are grateful to see proposed investments in child care, we still have a long way to go. baby prop c funds should be used to support young children and their families. i'm here to urge you to oppose this ordinance as will move baby prop c funding to be used for other purposes not approved by the voters. child care is essential to san francisco's families, especially those who are low income. it is also the key to san francisco's economic revitalization by preserving child care funds, we can support under-resourced communities, ease the burden on parents, and ensure that children thrive. our all marginalized and low income people in san francisco deserve care and services. we need to find budget solutions that do not pit services against each other. we must fund child care, food security, and youth services. these are all vital

issues to the well-being of our city. thank you. thank you. faith sanchez, next speaker, please. good afternoon, supervisors. thank you for being here. my name is mary evelyn thomas. i'm an african american. early educator. we are here because we need to make sure that prophecy continues. prop c was made. we voted for it from 1980. we have been working for 40 years or more in early education, 50 years. but it's very important for the children. you see those children, they went to child care. that's how they learn. how to do these things. so you need to give them another hand, because if it wasn't for the educators that are here, we have educators from all the city. i'm from district 11. oh, am i mega black? all that we're just here to make sure that families children are served and prophecy was there and we voted for that. so i know

that you guys are going to stand for it with us, and we just thank you for all your help. thank you. and thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker, please. good afternoon. my name is shanelle brown, and i'm here on behalf of the black early educator policy council, a group that advocates on behalf of black early educators and children in san francisco, convened by children's council of san francisco. in this budget season, it's critical to uplift and center the needs of black children and our black early educators. while we acknowledge proposed investments in child care, we still have a long way to go. this ordinance proposes moving baby prop c funding to be used for other purposes not approved by the voters. this is a concern when our child care system is, and especially how we fund supports for black children. families and educators are still starved for the kind of resources that would help us ensure all san francisco children have the opportunity to thrive without child care and baby policy, our black children will not be able to thrive and meet their full potential. thank you for your time and thank you shanelle brown. next speaker, please. good afternoon everyone.

my name is daria and i have two kids. my daughter is four years old. my son is one and seven, and both of them go to chi minh center. and we're extremely happy and satisfied by the services provided by our educational organization and with the help of baby prop money. and we're extremely concerned that this financing may be limited and if not for this program, we as parents would never be able to live in san francisco with this high cost of living. and it's a well known fact that children's brains develop faster from birth to age five, so than any other time in their lives. and in fact, 90% of brain development occurs before a child goes to kindergarten. so baby prop financing give opportunities to families in a difficult financial situation to be able to provide high level education for their kids and for the parents to be able to work, to look for jobs, and also to get education. so any limitation

will worsen the level and quality of services provided. numbers of teachers in the room and the quality of facilities. time has expired. thank you. yeah, thank you so much. next speaker, please. hello, supervisors. monica walters, ceo, louis children's services i'm here to say that we do not support, baby prop c balance, interest, money being allocated three years ahead of time through 2627. we don't support freezing baby prop c baseline of early care and education spending in the city. budget we already have deficit trigger language to freeze base funding. additional language is not necessary and the balance minimum should be raised from 100 million set last year to at least 300 million. we oppose setting a precedent of using baby c funds to fill holes and replace cuts. we're now in the second year of this place of this practice, and any baby prop

c balance and interest money used to fill a general baseline should be used towards children related programs. thank you, thank you. monica walters, next speaker. good afternoon. my name is natalie and i am here today on behalf of my mother. my mother is from the ninth district and has been working, has been running her family child care center for the past 17 years. i have grown up alongside with the children my mother has taken care of since i was two. i am now 19 and i've taken an interest in early childhood education. i am learning for and learning with, with children every day because i believe they can grow to be the best version of themselves with the right support. and that right support is baby prop c. i believe that baby props give children the opportunity for them to receive the right education with correct, with the correct resources, so please consider keeping the education funds for these children. they are heavily needed because the children today are our future. i believe that child care is a warm home away from home. thank

you and thank you, natalie. next speaker. good afternoon supervisors, my name is ravel taylor. i'm actually been in district ten. over, i want to say i won't say my age, but over 20 something years, and i've been working in the field a very long time. i've been in the public school system here. i've been, rooting, advocating, working hard, going to school, continuing to go to school. i feel like the prop c, i'm going to speak for all my employees that work at my site, they continue to go to school. it helps for them to stay here in san francisco, not to move over to bridges, and yes, we need to use the funds wisely. we should use it for our babies. please thank you. and thank you much for addressing this committee. next. speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is marcel rocha. i have been working at an

infant and toddler teachers at uyghur children's services in san francisco, sunnydale district, restrained for 16 years, the proposition or ordinance has suggested relocating baby prop c funding to propose not approved by voters. we opposed to this ordinance and ask that to be postponed to allow for further discussions. during my 16 years old infant and toddler teachers, i have witnessed the critical importance of having a qualified teacher during the first three years of the children's life, and a safe environment with appropriate accommodation and attention allows children to explore and discover their world with guidance and nurturing, aiding their growth and development in various skills. child care is essential to san francisco economic evaluation. without child care and baby prop c, parents cannot work or tend to school. children's cannot thrive. child care centers, family care providers, and small business owners cannot keep open the doors and our city cannot reach to the full potential we qualify childcare. our children

will have a bright future, and family will be able to work without worrying about child care. thank you much for, addressing this committee. next speaker. hello, i'm alan wong, policy director for children's council and board president for city college. this budget ordinance reduces child care funds by taking up to $65 million in baby prop c money over the next four years to reduce and freeze baseline early care and education spending requirements, according to the budget and legislative analyst's office. the adjusted baseline amount in early education will be reduced from 94 million this year to 77 million each of the next four years, the community was caught off guard by these proposals, and the extent in which child care will be affected over the next four years. the baby prop city proposition specifically says this is not meant to supplant child care funding. on behalf of the ec advocacy coalition, i ask that the board table this item until our coalition meets with the mayor's office tomorrow and comes to an agreeable resolution. thank you. thank you much. ellen wong, next speaker.

hello, tiger. hello, local. selina hi, de coco, regarding josé motoko heng, title ye ye, ye ye. yang ye pup si tienen pongo ye some fancy white men for getting tiktok ye fomo you got mo public sponsor mo public city governor hochul getting the lawsuit gong jogger quote hota hai ye doug emhoff tiktok go cow yolk. hey mom ho gamsu public josé. hello, my name is selena. i live in san francisco with district nine and i'm a child care provider. prop c help us, provide child care for families where, they will be able to work and without property, the kids

will not be able to have, would not have access to quality childcare. thank you. for di ali , bula vinaka malo lelei and talofa. my name is john nauer. basically, i'm going to speak as a member of the pacific islander community today, first and foremost, madam chair, members of the board of supervisors, thank you so much for all your support. as you know, we do not have champions in these spaces and places where decisions are made. and we are so grateful for you, for your for your support and looking forward for your continued support to help us uplift our community, for far too long, our voices have not been heard and our needs have not been met. but we really appreciate that. but as a member of our great city of san francisco, i've sat here since 10:00 and i was reminded of a reality today. we put too much

emphasis on our departments and those that are supposed to serve the people of the community than those that are actual the residents and taxpayers. and the reason why we exist in our great city. right. and i say that to say this when i sat here and i'm looking at all the budgets, i'm like, damn, we top heavy. i'm seeing millions, even billions of dollars going to staffing and operational costs. but yet we're talking about essential services that all our brothers and sisters need in order to survive in san francisco. appreciate you for being patient with me. thank you. we got to get that right, though. absolutely. thank you so much for, addressing this committee. next. speaker good afternoon. my name is barbara walden. i work for mission neighborhood centers, a multi-service child care agency in san francisco. while we are heartened to see proposed investments in child care, we will still have a long way to go and once again, must defend baby prop c, this ordinance proposes moving baby prop c funding to be

used for other purposes not approved by the voters. we oppose this ordinance and ask it be continued to allow for further discussion. baby prop c helped my organization recruit, hire and retain talented educators. an educated, passionate teaching professionals, we are able to pay our teachers, most of whom are women of color, a wage that allows them to support and care for their families. but there is still more to do to be done in the areas of mental health and overall wellness support, so our teachers can care for the city's children. thank you and thank you, barbara bolton, next speaker. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is liz rivas. i am from san francisco. i am home grown. i actually came from mission neighborhood center as a child, and now as an adult, i get to serve my community. it is important that we invest in our future, that we invest in the children. that will be the future of this, you know, field and this generation. it is important to keep the prop c

funds, prop c funds. it is important to invest in child mental health. it is important to invest in our families. is this financial having this ability to have these finances for the future of our children is essential for the growth and development of the future of s and their families, and hopefully one day we'll have representatives like myself that started with mission neighborhood center, representing the future. thank you. and thank you. liz rivas. next speaker. good afternoon. my name is sean ducey. i live in san francisco district three and work at the low income investment fund. i am urging you to preserve baby prop c funding for its dedicated purpose investing in high quality child care for all children. in san francisco, voters passed baby prop c because they recognized the importance of investing in children's early years. we would never cut a child off from access to early care and

education. after only a couple of years. similarly, it's critical that we continue to invest in the early years of brady prop c this funding has just started to make an impact in the community and any changes at this early stage would kneecap the voter passed initiative, redirecting important dollars away from san francisco's children and families. this budget season. i urge you to protect baby prop c, all of it. thank you, and thank you. sean ducey, next speaker. hello. hello, supervisors. my name is natalie kim, and i'm a program officer with the low income investment fund. imagine a city without children, a city where only adults living in double income households are allowed to thrive. this is where we are headed. baby prop c has helped child care providers specifically, specifically single income earning bipoc women across the city create generational legacies in a city that is so eager to push us out and push out the communities that have made san francisco, san francisco. look at who filled the room today. one of my

clients is one of the last standing black homeowners in the historic fillmore district on grove street. she has seen the neighborhood change, the neighbors and families leave, and children grow older with baby prop c, she has been able to continue her program that has lasted over 25 years, servicing the black families in her neighborhood and church. let's continue to make history together by ensuring bipoc children have safe learning experiences by protecting baby property. thank you and thank you. natalie kim. next speaker. hello, supervisors. my name is norma ruiz and i reside in district six. for the past 15 years, i have dedicated myself to early childhood education here in san francisco. i have witnessed firsthand the positive income impact of prop baby prop c in enhancing the quality of care of our city young children. i'm concerned about the proposed ordinance to redirect prop baby prop c funds for purposes not approved by the voters. we me as

strongly oppose this move and urge that further discussion will be allowed even with the support of baby prop c, our priority must remain on putting our young children and teachers first. early childhood education should be a key part of our city's budget, essential for san francisco economy revitalization without reliable child care enabled by initiatives like baby prop c, parents struggle to work , children's cannot thrive, and our family childcare and small businesses owners face uncertain futures. speakers time has elapsed, but thank you so much for addressing this committee. next speaker good afternoon, supervisors. my name is mark tao. i'm the cfo at uyghur children's services. last year we were facing some potential baby prop funding cuts. we are here to ask for help. and you did we are so appreciative. dc has also been such a great department. support all of work on the ingrid leadership. we are

very grateful. so we are asking. we hope that you can hold off approving this baseline spending ordinance until next week. the new ordinance can be impactful to our for our future funding. we would like to better understand it and have some input during the next several days. thank you for your consideration and thank you, marco. next speaker. hello, my name is sakura schlegel and i'm a teacher assistant with child care services. i'm here to advocate for the children today since they can't advocate for themselves. we work with infants, toddlers, and children between the ages of zero and five. a majority of these families live below the federal poverty line. a lot of these families are supported by their grandparents, aunts, uncles and family and friends. family friends who pick up or drop off their kids in lieu of their parents. if the children are unhoused or in the foster system, they fast track into our enrollment. as a result, a lot

of the children we work with may have no parents, a single parent, a children of divorce, dropped off by one parent, or picked up by another. we have dual language learners whose home language is spanish. while we don't have enough spanish speaking teachers to support their dual language learning, we have children with social, emotional and behavioral issues. children with delayed language learning, as well as kids on the spectrum who have different learning disabilities or special needs. i'm asking you to advocate for the money, baby. prop c being kept for these children in early childhood education and going to programs and resources and wraparound services that we provide to these families. thank you, thank you. next speaker. hello. my name is tabata. i work for gucci. i have four children and i would like to say that san francisco has a necessity for child care. and when there's a necessity in a community, shouldn't be a privilege, should be a right to have child care. thank you. and thank you, tabitha. next speaker, please.

hello. my name is stephanie adams rios, and i'm the proud daughter of efrain rios and rosario gonzalez. i started here because they benefited from early child care. as a child. i was in the in centers and now as an individual that works in early child care centers with wu yi children's services. it's my duty to advocate for the families and teachers and educators and children's that are not here today because they're taking care of the kids. right. it's important not to be here next year again. debating the funding for proposition c, it's important for us to keep that, honor that, but make that a priority as well. please, please consider, eliminate considering taking away but giving us more funding for the future as well. please. thank you. thank you much. stephanie adams rios, next speaker. good afternoon. my name is douglas gil, and i'm the family and community partnership manager with chi ming. i believe childcare and early education should be a right, not a privilege. prop c supports us in making that belief a reality,

ensuring all children and their families, regardless of their socioeconomic status, have access to the care and holistic services they need. i urge you to keep the prop see funds invested in child care and early education. these funds make early childhood education a sustainable career for educators and family service workers like myself. and in a time where sf faces mass exodus, it's crucial to invest in institutions that keep our communities housed, educated and employed. with the living wage. diverting these funds would undermine these achievements and betray the trust of voters. implore you to honor the commitment to our children and educators by preserving prop c funds for their promised purpose. thank you and thank you. next speaker, please. good afternoon. i'm jenny perlman with safe and sound. i live in district one and have sent four children to preschool in district one, i am also here on behalf of the family services alliance, formally, formally the family resource alliance, a network of 40 plus community based family organizations that serve more than 40,000 people. while we're

thrilled about all the tremendous investment and the results in early childhood and support for young children, we're very concerned about this ordinance and the late notice of the ordinance without community input and without any discussion about how it pits the needs of different groups against each other. we do not want this to set a precedent, and we should help work to all ensure that baby prop c continues to serve its intended purposes of supporting young children and their families, including restoration of things like enhancement grants to frc to fund basic needs and to support case managers and mental health support. thank you and thank you. jenny perlman. next speaker, please. hello, supervisors. my name is brenda miles, also with safe and sound and family support alliance. according to my shirt free promotion. please. it's

extremely distressing to the community when these funds are threatened to be pulled from what they consider supports, you hear the diverse community members from across the city. children ages all over these demographics are supporting from young children to our elders. so please consider the support, the voice of the community, maintain these enhancement grants so that this cycle of support can continue within the city of san francisco. we desperately need it. thank you so much. and thank you, brenda miles. next speaker. good afternoon, supervisor. my name is sue. you and i'm the family advocate in climbing hester. we currently are surveyed, 340 children and aged three months to five years old across our nine center. and even we support the parental class and also the home based vista program. i'm here to address the impact of the budget on the

early childcare and education program in san francisco and the park. c funding is very important for our children, family and educator and the family service workers like myself. i'm here to urge you to keep the park fund to invest for the childcare and the early education and intense by the voters. this funding is important for the well-being of our children and our families across our access to the quality, early childcare and education provide a strong foundation and a lifelong learning and development. without enough funding our family, the many families will struggle to find the affordable, high quality childcare for their children. since the implement of the policy, we have seen a lot the important input speakers time has expired, but thank you. see you for addressing this committee. next speaker, please. okay. thank you so much. thank you. to keep the parks for our children and our families. next speaker, please. hi. hello,

supervisors. my name is claire grady. i'm a 12 year sf resident living in d two with my partner and our son, harry, who is four. you may remember me from such board of supervisors meeting as the last time the mayor tried to divert money that was democratically allocated for children and families away from its intended recipients. things have changed since that meeting last summer. my partner lost his job and when his ui ran out and he still hadn't found anything, i was surprised, but relieved to discover that even with my tech salary as a family of c of three, our son qualified for the early learning scholarship program offered by the city. without this program and our rent control department, my family would have been forced to leave the city. as it stands, a mere 13% of sf residents are children, almost 10% below the national average of 22, and cuts to child care funding will make it even more difficult for low and middle income citizens to raise our families here. i'm heartened by the proposal to extend the early learning scholarship program to more low

and middle income families, but confused about how this can happen if the proposal to divert funds generated by prop c goes ahead. thank you much. claire brady, next speaker, please. hi, supervisors. can i ask you guys a question? when did you guys go to a home, child care or a like, preschool or like a center when you're a kid hands, you should ask somebody about it. like we have educators, we have kids. it's kind of awesome, i want to say thank you in advance because you guys supported us before, and i know you guys will support us again. don't be swayed by evil, yes. you heard our stories. you know the numbers. you know our passion. we know. you know that. we fight for what we believe in. oh, sorry. and yes, make good decisions. be a good person. and thank you. thank you amber. thank you. ingrid. by and thank you for your comments. next speaker. hello. hi, how are ya? my name

is oscar, i am a district nine resident, i have i'm a proud father of a three year old, my wife is a family child care provider. my mom is a family child care provider, yeah. my aunts, my brother, they're all family child care provider, they cannot be here today because. it's hard. they know it's important to show up here, and then in san francisco, there are 800 family child care providers. i'm from the family child care association of san francisco, imagine. yeah. if we close down today and then all show up here, there will be 8000 families, and then we hire three staff and. yeah, imagine all the staff coming here. and then, i am sure it's going to impact a lot of people. and yeah, please keep popsie in popsie. yeah. thank you, thank you. oscar. next speaker, please. hello, my name

is adeline. we live in outer mission and my mom runs a family childcare. we opposed moving baby prop c funding to be used for other purposes that violate voters. will families and children need baby prop c funding? very much. it helped parents continue to work and it helped children to get important early education as a whole. it affects san francisco's economics. please keep baby policy to be used on children and families. thank you and thank you. adeline. next speaker good afternoon, supervisors. my name is jamie huang and i'm a family childcare provider in visitacion valley. we fancied for mayor the budget investment to expand early care child care effort and help more families into the early child care and education. cutting the waiting

lists for subsidies, supporting more effort for keeping qualified educators stay in the field. keeping the childcare facility running is bending a, eligibility for financial support for more families, keeping parents back to work and stay living in the san francisco, the daycare providers , teachers, and all families we serve are benefits by the baby policy. we. if cutting baby proxy funding. this is a this is a contrary the supporting early child care and education purpose. we respect supervisor supervisors, supervisors and continually to take consideration and discussion to support expired baby policy. but thank you much. jimmy wong, next speaker. hello, honorable board of supervisors. my name is vivian lopez, and i'm a mother of estella and johnny lopez, who

attend early care programs in the mission district of san francisco, as well as a proud educator for mission neighborhood centers. when i first began teaching, i was discovered by close relatives. i had heard all throughout my life how underpaid teachers were, and it was becoming my reality. i was persuaded to instead make a profession working in retail. i halted my career and began working at a warehouse for two years, working my way up to make a living, something i believed i couldn't do as a teacher. i had it all figured out until i realized that nothing about my life i was living brought me joy. therefore, i decided to leave and pursue a career in teaching, where i took a $10 pay cut. i struggled to make ends meet. that was before baby prop c. it's interesting when i hear people call the place where i work a garden area. in case you don't know, they mean daycare. guardia brings to my head and i ask myself, how many guardias are the daycare workers specifically creating lesson plans based upon the learning objectives of each individual child? how many areas are strategically connecting with coaches, mental health consultants, family specialists, social emotional specialists, or even partner organizations to

provide family support? expired. thank you much for being lopez. sorry about that. all good. next speaker please. hi. good afternoon, supervisor, my name is yvette miranda. i'm the mother of three children who have attended early childhood education located at the mission district, they're present today at missing one, since their start, their education, early education. i learned from all the teachers. i always admired them. i always learn something from there. and since, since since they were attending, i got involved in parent workshops. so i started my education learning from mnc. it's where the program of my kids were, with the change, the with the baby change brought up, i, i become the entrance of become an educator. it helped me to get my degree, a special degree in child studies and families and, please do not

take away the opportunity to keep, investing in early childhood education, keep baby policy intact. it is important to create safe and nurturing environments for children. but most importantly, important importantly, to keep preparing and training educatorse m. thank you so much. and thank you, yvette miranda, next speaker. hi, supervisors. thank you for listening in. my name is susie yu. i'm an educator at epiphany center district four, and i live in district two. so i am a true san franciscan. i'm not here to reiterate what's already been said. countless time because hello, the public has spoken, but i will talk about me. before prop c, i was struggling to be able to live to stay within san francisco. with prop c, i find myself. i finally found i can live in san francisco and actually put food on the table. last year when property was in jeopardy, i was

scared. and this year i'm scared now because i don't want to be a statistics on the homeless people budget part. so please, please think about us and the children and the future of san francisco. thank you. thank you much, susie. you next speaker. good afternoon. my name is camille bailey, and i'm the deputy director of freedom forward. we operate the hype center, which stands for helping young people elevate. and it is san francisco's only multi-service drop in center, serving young people 14 to 24, with a focus on preventing sex trafficking and exploitation. if we are not able to secure add back dollars or other sydney funding, hype center will have no choice but to close our doors. hype currently has 543 members, a majority of whom are black, latinx, indigenous and other folks of color. lgbt queue system involved and experiencing homelessness. they hail from every district in san francisco

without hype center. all of these young people who are vulnerable to exploitation will lose their dedicated space to address their basic needs, access specialized services and be part of an extraordinary community of support. it is imperative that our city protect the vulnerable children and youth from sex trafficking, and we urge you and your committee to support this population and ensure that hype center is funded to remain open. thank you so much. thank you. camille bailey, next speaker. hello. my name is garth bundy. i work for the low income investment fund and previous to that i worked for the children's council. i was there working with every day watching the parent voices. when they decided to go out and literally pound the pavement looking for signatures so that baby prop c could then eventually get on the ballot and be voted for. i know how hard they worked for. i've personally seen how important every ls

voucher is and every increment of getting to other layers of income allows so many more people. in san francisco. the ability to access child care. and then there are so many other benefits to prop c money. that goes for quality improvement, for structures, for programs, for training. so we appreciate your time and your patience on this long day and all these comments and please don't take this extra money away from prop c, it is so needed for the children. thank you. and thank you for addressing this committee. next speaker. hi, my name is judy yee and i live in district four. i am the director of a small japanese bilingual preschool located in district one of san francisco. we are heartened to see proposed investments in child care, and we are still far from realizing our goals. so it goes without saying we oppose the ordinance

to divert funds with out prop seeds funding with prop c funding this past year, our program has seen significant improvement and without promises sustained, continued existence. i don't i really fear that we cannot have the resources to support our current families and retain our staff. i understand that current problems may seem dire, but we cannot afford to dry up resources allocated to our children to gain temporary relief for our current issues. child care is important to san francisco's economic revitalization and to important to our parents and our children. and thank you for your time and consideration. and thank you, judy. next speaker. hello, supervisors. my name is anna wolde-yohannes. i'm going to talk fast. i'm a d5 resident representing the advocacy coalition block early educators policy council and advanced college. as you've heard from

everyone here this afternoon, the proposed ordinance to reallocate baby property funds without voter approval is deeply concerning and deserves more discussion. if you hear nothing else from what i say, please hear this that all of us stand before you, not only as individuals pleading our case, but also as a voice for numerous educators who have emailed their comments, which i implore you to read, and for countless others who couldn't be present as they are currently working with children in the classroom. remember, our programs don't close until six or later, and i also want to emphasize that even with the help of baby prop c, our community needs time to implement programs to support black and brown families and the workforce. i urge you to raise the threshold for prop c reserve balance before it can be used for the general fund. multi year projects are in progress to enhance our workforce and by depleting these funds prematurely, it jeopardizes our success. i asked before and i'll ask again. we need more time and i just want to emphasize too that let's support the department of early childhood to realize our city's goal of universal childcare. we're not there yet because time is expired. but thank you much. and

i, waldo yohannes, thank you. good afternoon, supervisors. i'm sarah hicks, killed with early care educators and the coalition. much appreciated for you listening to all of us today. and i want to raise a few key points that we asked to oppose in the proposal. we were surprised by the baseline modification for four years through 2728, and the unpredictability of the amount that will be taken. we do not support freezing the baby prop c baseline of the early care and education spending in the city. budget already, bbc already has a deficit trigger language to freeze additional language is unnecessary. we oppose the setting of the precedent of using baby c funds to fill holes and replace cuts in other areas for which it's not intended. we are now in the second year with four more in the proposal the balance minimum, which after additional funds cannot be taken to replace the general fund set last year at 100 million, is too

low. the amount is insufficient to cover the identified early care and education one time and short term needs that support the much needed growth of capacity, including workforce, specialized learning and wellness supports. thank you and thank you for addressing this committee. next speaker. hi. good afternoon supervisors. my name is sierra fisher and i'm here with the ec advocacy coalition today to echo all the voices before me opposing this ordinance that aims to use baby prop c dollars to balance the budget over the next four years. while we are extremely grateful for the proposed investments in early care and education, this proposal to divert dedicated ec funds in order to close the budget deficit is completely backwards. baby policy was a voter backed initiative that passed as a direct solution to a critical need within this city. it offered a unified vision for a universal child care system. families of san francisco depend on services like child care and ongoing investments into their children that make it possible to live and thrive in this city.

if we actually want to reimagine this city and fulfill its potential, we must invest in the potential of our children and avoid setting a precedent that dedicated funding sources for marginalized communities will inevitably fill the gaps in the budget. thank you, supervisors. thank you. sierra fisher, next speaker. supervisors alex markowski with the sfcc advocacy coalition, thanks for sticking through us through with us through a long day here. so i want to also voice opposition to the ordinance. and in doing so, i'd like to read to you from the ordinance. this wasn't in any presentations, but it says in approving this ordinance, the board recognizes that the voters did not intend revenues from the tax to be used to fill other budgeting priorities, and acknowledges the goal of this measure was to establish a dedicated funding source to realize the goals of universal early care and education system. so maybe property was passed in 2018 through the hard work of thousands of advocates, parents, educators and families. many of those, that are people that you've heard from today, and

they were amongst the nearly 1000 folks that rallied and made public comment last year when these funds, which were not even realized until, or released until 2021, were yet again in danger. now they will be here again next week if need be. and that's how meaningful that this thing is to our children, families and providers. so i ask that at a minimum, you please, continue this ordinance until next week so we can have community input and discuss. time has expired. thank you much for addressing this committee. next speaker. hello. good afternoon, supervisors. my name is gloria romero and i'm with instituto familiar de la raza and also a member of the family services alliance. and i'm also here and echoing the sentiment of the community to protect and to preserve baby prop c for its intended purposes and as a lead agency for a two frcs in both the neighborhood mission and population. next citywide, we're able to see and we collaborate and work with providers to see the difference that property

funds provides, to provide that comprehensive and support that's needed. and so i just urge you to do that. so we can also continue to partner with the department to fulfill the mission and the vision of early care and family support services. thank you. and thank you, gloria romero, next speaker . hi, i'm octavia georges. i am a single mother of the community and without baby prop c, i would not have been able to attain, such goals of completion. like i just graduated college and those type of things. so without baby property, i wasn't able to break those societal bondage that was placed upon me. so just give it a reconsideration. thank you. and thank you for addressing this committee. good afternoon supervisors. my name is mario paz. i serve as the executive director of the good samaritan family resource center. i'm also wearing multiple hats. i'm a member of the san francisco

latino parity and equity coalition and latino task force, and i'm also co-chair of the family services alliance. these are my main comments. as an ec provider, we recognize the importance of baby prop c to assuring the that san francisco can meet and achieve its commitment to all young children success in our city. please assure that funds from baby prophecy continue to support the measures intended purpose to increase access to high quality ec services for children and families. please also support limiting cuts to our latin immigrant communities, our that support our vulnerable latin children, youth and families. as data shows that ongoing adverse impact post covid as many are still unemployed, underemployed, becoming increasingly housing insecure and homeless, and depending on our organizations as lifelines just to survive with basic needs and making choices between diapers and rent and so forth. speaker. so please continue and thank you. but

thank you much. mario paz, for addressing this committee. and if we have no further speakers, madam chair, that completes our queue. thank you. seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed, supervisor melgar , thank you very much. chair chan, first of all, i want to say thank you, for the breathtaking, mobilization in organizing. and, just passion that there is in the community, you know, it's really amazing. so thank you for being here and for your engagement and your, input into something that's very serious for our city, i want to say a couple things. we have sat here for the last couple days hearing from departments, from the department on the status of women, from hsh, from the department of homelessness, from mayor's office of housing, from economic and workforce

development, and the mission of every single one of those departments in the programs that they run relates directly back to what we're doing here and building out a system of universal child care. so we cannot talk about downtown recovery and bringing workers back to downtown without talking about child care. we cannot talk about equity for women in wage parity without talking about child care. the face of poverty in california is a single mom, and usually she's latina, so we cannot talk about any of the things that we talk about in terms of economic parity, justice and gender justice, equity in the workforce without child care, and for communities of color in the bay view, in the mission, in excelsior, in the richmond and everywhere care for communities of color, child care. and it's an essential component of not just, you know, the family economic health, but also those children's success

throughout k through 12 and into the workforce. so this is at the at the heart of everything we're trying to do here. so that being said, this legislation caught me by surprise because we had talked about the, interest, you know, and i think that this community has been amazingly flexible and generous, last year, you know, by allowing this interest to, to go, you know, towards the baseline and then that frees up general fund dollars for other uses, and i think that, you know, folks are generally like, we're not there at being, having the capacity to use all of the money. you know, this year, even though we have just rolled out, you know, an expansion of the, the, the who's eligible for subsidies. that being said, you know, freezing the baseline for four years is a lot. it's a lot to ask. and, you

know, i think also unnecessary for my, you know, perspective. so i would ask, respectfully, chair chan, if we could if i could make a motion to continue this item until next thursday, i will be working with the mayor's office, on amendments, and also, i know that folks in the community are meeting with the mayor's office over the next couple of days, and i hope that we can work something out, but i also want folks to know that we here in this committee and on the board of supervisors, we understand the importance of this investment and that it is important to this community, but it's also important to san francisco for everything else that we're trying to do, and without it, we're not going to get there. so we're going to put our money where our mouth is. and i'd like to make that motion, please. chair chan second. and then, with that, a roll call for the motion for continuance to the call chair t