>> good afternoon, ladies and

gentlemen. i want to welcome you to the budget and finance committee. i'm supervisor cohen. i want to recognize our friends at sfgov tv. we have jane smith and adrian stark. and mr. young, victor young, clerking, and supervisor fewer on my right, and to my left, supervisor stefani, and on the far end, supervisor yee. joining us shortly will be supervisor sheehy. we have a really robust schedule to get through today. mr. clerk, could you call item 1 first? >> clerk: yes. i would like to read a few announcements. plus turn off phones and electronic devices. speaker cards should be submitted to the clerk. item 1 is to discuss budget

priorities for fiscal years 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 and requesting budget and legislative analyst to report. >> supervisor cohen: ladies and gentlemen, i want to thank you for joining us today. this is our final budget priority hearing. yay! maybe i'm the only one excited. today is a diverse set of presentations on eight additional priorities identified by the board of supervisors through a budget legislative analyst survey that was conducted earlier this year. these -- those topics in order of presentations are, first we'll hear from the cultural district staffing. then we'll hear from children and youth services. then we'll be hearing from senior services, followed by pedestrian safety, street repair and repaving, street trees and

landscaping, work force development and pipeline to city jobs. closing it out, clean and safe parks. these issues represent the key policy issues for our board as a whole. and we are here to help inform the crafting of the mayor's budget. as a reminder, the mayor will be presenting his budget formally to the board of supervisors as well as to the public june 1. we have a variety of departments and community coalitions presenting on areas that we've identified, giving a high policy level framework for how we support our constituents throughout this entire budget process. we'll hear from the public, who will advocate for their own policy priorities. i've instructed each presenter to keep their presentations high level with a focus on policies not a focus on specific grants

or organizations. we want to understand what we're funding, for what reason we're funding it, and we're looking for evidence of impact towards our policy goals. presentations should be no more than 5 minutes and i will be holding you to that with additional time for questions from my colleagues. i want to acknowledge that there are departments that have submitted 20 slides. if you are that department -- and i can see that some of you are here -- i suggest that you edit it down now. we're looking for a short, 5-minute presentation. public comment will be held at the end, after the eight presentations. we'll have public comment then. public comment is 2 minutes. 2-minute intervals. you will hear a soft chime indicating 30 seconds remaining on your 2-minute allotment of time. to the departments and community organizations, i want to set

your expectations. first, my priority as chair is to examine programs that have recently experienced funding cuts and keeping the funding for the programs strong. request to fund program expansions will be considered but only will be considered after our top priority issues are already allocated. everyone, your job today is to convince us, to convince us with evidence what those priorities and issues are and what the best way would be to expand them. to my colleagues, please note -- please note any specific or -- any specific issues that you believe should be a priority for the mayor and the budget committ committee, please don't hesitate to speak up. with that, i'd like to welcome supervisor ronen, who is joining

us today. she will speak on the first policy topic, which are cultural districts. welcome supervisor. the floor is yours. >> clerk: madam chair, we have six members of the supervisors in the room and we're convened as a special meeting of the board of supervisors. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for that special announcement. >> supervisor ronen: thank you. i want to thank supervisor cohen for your leadership. i share your hope that we don't have our normal dysfunctional process on the last day of budget night. so i'm really excited to be here today to talk about one of my budget priorities, which is related to cultural districts. for those of you who maybe have never heard of a cultural district, it's because while some cultural districts have

existed in san francisco for some time, the concept is relatively new. i introduced legislation in october of last year, which we'll hear at committee next week, to create a formalized process and sort of an official recognition of cultural districts in the city. the main purpose of a cultural district is to identify areas of san francisco where certain communities have established themselves historically in san francisco and have brought rich cultural, artistic traditions and life to those neighborhoods. for example, we have the latino cultural district around 24th street in the mission. we have the japantown cultural district in district 5. we have the soma filipino district in south of market

neighborhood and transgender district in the tenderloin. these are areas where communities -- and usually communities that have been marginalized or are low-income have gone to seek refuge and establish themselves in our city. they're also neighborhoods that make our cities and san francisco the amazing inter national travel destination of the world an envy. we're not a cookie-cutter city where every neighborhood looks the same. we have rich cultural identities throughout san francisco. however, because of the housing affordability crisis in san francisco, we're not only losing the people that make up the cultural districts, we're losing the businesses that have been around for decades, that provide

the rich cuisines and products that you can only find in those neighborhoods. we're losing arts and culture organizations that exist for these communities to express themselves and bring art and culture into our lives. quite frankly, we're missing that place making that's made us the envy of the world, quite frankly. i've created this concept of a cultural district as a way to fight back. we currently have five cultural districts in the city. we have one cultural district that supervisor sheehy introduced on tuesday. lgbtq district in the castro and supervisor cohen is working with community in the bayview for an african-american bayview arts and cultural district in her district. and so these are -- we have seven in the works or are

existing, across five districts, representing seven different communities that are under siege and want to continue to stay and provide the richness and the vitality that they bring to the city of san francisco. what i've asked the mayor and board to prioritize this year is a little over $1 million to make these cultural districts real and possible. we tried to present them as bare-bones requests. it would include one full-time staff at mohcd to do the amazing work that they've been doing without any specific funding to enhance and help these cultural districts be a vital asset to our communities. it includes a staffer in oawd. and some money for support staff

for advisory bodies to these cultural districts as well as some money for executive directors of every cultural district. i don't want to take up too much time because we're going to hear a presentation from the mayor's office from housing and community development. but as supervisors of communities throughout san francisco where the cultural districts will live and thrive and continue to bring us the richness that they have throughout many years, i hope that you will join me in supporting this budget request. thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: thank you for framing the purpose and spirit of cultural districts. with that, mr. chu, welcome. good to see you. whenever you're ready, please begin. >> all right. brian chu, director of community

development, mayor's office. and i think you have paper copies of the power point available in front of you. so supervisor ronen has given an excellent overview of the genesis of the process. our office has been working closely with offices of work force and economic development with the arts department, public works, human rights commission and other departments to come together to see how it can most effectively collaborate on this project. as supervisor ronen stated, one of the elements of this program is to formalize the partnership between the city and the diverse communities to develop clear strategies to stabilize these communities. we want to leverage the city capacity. one of the primary purposes is to identify the existing resources that may be available for many of these vulnerable populations.

they just don't know they're available to facilitate that and come up with a more formalized process for creating these districts. supervisor ronen stated they've come into pass on a somewhat piece-by-piece formalization. it hasn't been the consistency and it's been sometimes confusing for the department to figure out how to properly resource these. some of the goals that may be a part of these processes is to maintain the cultural and historic assets, to really examine through the help of, for example, the planning department, what are those historic assets within each community and look the a -- at the displacement of residents. how to attract artists and entrepeneurs and how to celebrate the unique cultures and to make sure that the city

has culturally appropriate strategies to serve each community. here's some of the stake holders that have been identified. we plan to be working closely with the community-based organizations with small businesses, artists and in general the residents of each of these cultural districts. this is a quick snapshot of some of the dollars that have been allocated. you can see, we put this together by contacting the different departments. most of the funds have come through add-backs or mayoral enhancements. you can see the dollars go up and down because there has not been a consistent methodology of allocating resources for these programs. again, along with -- let me go back to this slide. you can see that there have been four districts before, as you are aware, the lgbtq district

was just approved and we've also been working with the bayview cultural district, which is in the planning process now. we've been talking about moving this program forward. we do want to propose limiting new cultural districts to no more than two per year. these are resource-intensive and time-intensive. an essential element of the proposed legislation with be the creation of cultural heritage and economic sustainable strategy, which is the chess report. it would be approved by the board of supervisors and create a roadmap for each community and would create the -- identify the strategies and be able to come

up with a timeline and also be able to, i guess, identify the rye sour -- resources available each district. right now, it's very much ad hoc. after the report is approved by the board of supervisors, then we'll move forward to the implementation process. in terms of the roles that staffing would play, our department would take the lead in compiling the chess report, working with the planning department. they would do the concept statement. we would coordinate with their on going anti-displacement projects. and a variety of city departments may have called upon for community outreach and working with consultants and community engagement. next step, as we see,

legislation itself will be reviewed by the rules committee on may 9. we'll continue to work with existing districts and those in the pipeline. and should the legislation be approved and resources outlined, we'd compile the chess reports and then depending on the resources work with each of these districts to fund their strategies in a more formalized, organized way. again, a brief, high-level overview of this process. i'm joined by mohcd programs as well as omwd and the planning department. we're hear to answer any questions that you might have about this process. >> supervisor cohen: you get a gold star. there was exactly 5 minutes. congratulations. awesome. you are setting the tone for a winning budget committee. thank you. i'm delighted. two questions for you. which costs for the cultural district staffing are one-time

costs versus ongoing costs? >> i would say that an example of a one-time cost could be the cost for consultants that might be engaged to assist with the initial plan. ongoing costs, for example, our department would be as we prepare the chess report each year, that it would be an ongoing cost for our portion. oawd portion where they continually work with each small business district is likely to be an ongoing cost. and the planning department in terms of preparing the context statement, is likely to be an ongoing cost. the planning portion is likely to be one time. >> supervisor cohen: one time for a year, six months, nine months? we're the budget committee. so we have to budget.

>> yes. i would anticipate it would take at least a year for a full plan to be developed. >> supervisor cohen: fair enough. can we make this funding a negotiated part of the developer agreement? >> it's an interesting idea. i can say for the transgender district, there were community advocacy around one development property, which did result in about $300,000 potentially being allocated to support it. the flip side, and i hope i'm not saying anything out of line, is that with these development projects, you are often not sure if that development will come to place. this development has been slow. so the money we've identified to come in as been rather -- we're not sure that the development will take place. so that's the flip side.

>> supervisor ronen: i want to answer that question a little bit. the legislation that we'll hear next week in committee, one of the things it does is it creates -- two things. it creates a fund for each cultural district. and it creates a c.a.c. for each cultural district. the idea is that there will be regular funds going into each cultural district so, that c.a.c. overseeing the funds can on an annual basis use the fund to enhance, preserve and meet the priorities for the cultural districts, all of which will look different. for example, in the latino cultural district, which is the one i know the best because it's in my district, i know that finding and locating buildings for affordable housing for primarily latino families that have been there for a long time is a priority and that's probably how they would want to

use some funds. another fund is the cultural arts organization. they don't have a permanent home. they might want to use money from that fund for a permanent home. the funds -- anybody can put money into it. when there are developments in the future, one of the community benefits could be putting funds to enhance the cultural district in that fund to be used at the discretion of the c.a.c., overseen by the mayor's office and office of community development. and then the city could make contributions to those funds as well. and then there is talk about a ballot measure that will allocate some of the hotel tax to put a regular portion of funds in these cultural district

funds every year. so we expect there -- the reason this is a useful tool is because there will be specific funding attached to the tool to be used for the purpose of enhancing and maintaining that cultural district. that means that the people that make up the culture, that means the businesses that support the culture. that means the arts organizations, place making. when you go into chinatown and you walk through that gate, you know immediately you are in chinatown. i would love for that to be the case in the castro, and the bayview. sorry if i'm all over the place. >> supervisor cohen: i guess this is a discussion that we'll have over the next month or so is seed money for cultural districts. if you are in a part of the county where there is very little development happening,

there would need to be seed money. i know we're connecting the legislation to hotel tax, so we can begin to have a conversation about what that seed money is and what is the appropriate level. thank you. colleagues, any questions? if not, we can keep on moving. supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i'm sorry if i missed this -- how are the development costs absorbed at all? we mentioned that it's all these departments that are collaborated. do they absorb it in the budgets? >> at this point, the existing departmenteds have been absorbing some of the costs but it's not at an expanded level.

we've been limited to being a grant organization if we need to work with existing committees, that would be the difference. >> supervisor fewer: so to infit stugs allies a program, your department would need resources to expand. >> that's true. >> supervisor fewer: what about the other departments? >> yes. i believe i've heard them say that they need more resources. >> supervisor cohen: thank you, mr. chu. next we'll hear from children and youth services. this is leo chi, dcyf, that will

make a presentation. they switched from three-year to five-year cycle this year. >> all right. thank you very much. thank you, supervisor cohen, for having these hearing and highlighting children and youth services and for doing a strong job on the section of the report. i'm cfo for children youth and their families, here on behalf of the department. our director is at a national

conference on school programs. the department of children youth and their families is the city agency responsible for ensuring that children and youth dollars allocated from the general fund are funding high quality culturally relevant services for children and youth and their families. the services are for children up to 18 years old as well as disconnected, transitional youth, up to and including 24 years old. we perform this through strategic funding, quality services, engagement with san francisco communities and partnerships. dcyf is working with san francisco to make it a great place to grow up. we relieved our r.f.p. for five-year funding cycle starting in july. we allocated $76 million in

direct contracts on 299 programs and six strategies. the strategies are educational support, enrichment leadership and skill building, justice services, mentorship, out of school time and youth work force development. for more context on the r.f.p., we received 693 proposals and funded 299 of them. 248 different agencies applied and 152 were awarded funds. so there were requests totalling $180 million and dcyf allocated that annually. 40 funding measures over 26

funding strategies and we're working to develop those for the newer plans coming forward in july. the primary data sources for this performance information are service and participation data that we capture in our contract management system. it provides a detailed look, but departmental performance is also provided in the performance measures that we provide to the controller's office each year. dcyf prioritized the lowest income neighborhoods where children and youth are expected to have the greatest need. this really reflected work that was done in our community needs assessment and services allocation plan over the last two years. they're components of our five-year funding cycle. speaking a little bit about the finances, just wanted to point

out that dcyf funds a large spectrum of funds, so costs vary widely. if there is one-on-one, that can be more expensive than group services. a lot of the time older youth programs particularly justice-related programs cost more and are more intensive than an after school program, for example. i know we're working to keep under 5 minutes, so wanted to flag that our website, dcyf.org, has year-end results for every program that we fund and you can see highlights by district. i'm really excited that our data and evaluation team have been using the tableau tool. you can also look at r.f.p. results. there are significant cost-drivers that are community-based organizations are facing, salary, fringe

costs, rents and other factors doing business in the city. so just wanted to share with you some graphics here. we do have services covering the whole of san francisco. there's a focus where the need is greatest, but we have services all around the city, which we're really proud of. additionally, we've been tracking data about race and age of our participants and will continue to going forward, particularly since we have a strong focus on equity. the right size is a range of programs. it's work force development, violence prevention, as well as out of school time and other initiatives we have in place. this information here is related to the '16/'17 years with final

reports. we'll have reports done in the upcoming months and then once we're in the new cycle, five new years of data. so we were asked to discuss any stretch goals about whether there are any unmet needs. i think the answer is, yes, for our area, as well as others today. if we were able to have additional resources, dcyf could approach providing services along with the grants awarded or next most qualified programs. there is some information that we can go into later. we are using a results-based framework. it helps us to figure out how well we're doing the work. children and youth are supported by nurturing communities and families. children and youth are physically and emotionally healthy, ready to learn and

succeed in school and ready for college work and productive adulthood. we have a lot of additional backup slides. if you have any questions for me now or i can get back to you at a later time. >> supervisor cohen: i think we have a room full of overachievers. you get a gold star, too. congratulations, leo. supervisor yee, the floor is yours. >> supervisor yee: thank you. i'm just looking at the sort of overall city programs that you highlighted on the second or third slide, educational, enrichment, blah, blah, blah. there seems to be two categories that are missing for me. and i -- even in the spending piece of the $73 million, there's a category that's missing to me also. maybe there's an explanation.

the category of 05 in which the fund was supposed to support. it's supposed to be part of this program and there's no indication that it's part of the program. the other piece that's missing is in particular for those who are of all ages of children and youth, but for the younger children and for the 0-5 and probably up to elementary -- through elementary school, the paren parents' activities or piece of their development is so important that it should be a part of a strategy. and we all know that the more parents are engaged, the more successful their kids will be. i don't see any strategy on that at all. can you explain those two things? >> absolutely. thank you for asking that question. if we could have the slides

back, please, i can talk over that. i thought that might come up, so i wanted to come prepared with some materials. this is funding growth from the current years, and the next year for 0-5 programming, so the reason the information as well as behavioral health information doesn't show up in r.f.p., those grants are administered by the office of early care and education as well as first five. we put our funds to those departmenteds to make sure that we're working closely in allocation. we're actively involved with the processes. you can see that the early care and education figure does grow over -- from '17/'18. we used one-time money this year and last year to accelerate that growth for 0-5 sooner. we're happy to continue to have conover agency ises with you

through the budget process and that graphic that does not include 0-5 can be confusinconf. i will work with our data team to see that they update that as well. >> supervisor yee: the other question that's related to that. and we can have an offline discussion, but people from early education have for years said that the percentage of funding that has been going to the 0-5 has been relatively low. and i know that when we had the reauthorization of the children's fund at the time that there was going to be some growth and much of the advocacy of the reauthorization at times was to expand the age bracket, so you would take some of the

funding to help with that category. and the other category was 0-5. i don't see that growth there in regards to the amount of funding that's been increased because of the -- i guess every year, we have a higher amount than we're collecting. >> sure. i think -- the way that funds were allocated for the upcoming year were to reflect the service allocation plan, which was approved by the board of supervisors and mayor's office and the allocations we put in were in line with what the services allocation plan proposed. i hear your concern about making sure that we have enough money for 0-5-year-olds, but we're hearing from the school districts about additional kids and so it's a tricky balancing

act. if there were more funds available for 0-5, we'd be happy to use them. i agree they could be put to go use, absolutely. >> supervisor yee: and i -- i really don't envy any of the department's position to allocate the funding, but there's a lot of needs and i get that part. i just want to make sure that -- it seems like the voice of the younger kids are always lost in the mix. so and the family piece, engagement piece? >> sure. we do have a family resource center initiative, in partnership with first five. so in a variety of neighborhoods around the city, i think that there is definitely an interest by our director and deputy director to expand the work going on. i can check with our director to

see if there were future initiatives that she may want to get back to you on. we're always happy to hear about where you think we should be prioritizing in terms of family support. >> supervisor yee: the family support fees, was that part of the last cycle for the five-year contracts? >> i believe that the family resource centers were just r.f.p r.f. r.f.p.'d out. and it's shared funding. we can use that contracting vehicle to increase the level of service for the centers, if there are additional funds needed for them. >> supervisor yee: and i'm not necessarily glued to the family resource centers as the sole beneficiary. there are other programs that may not be part of that.

but also with parent engagement. i wanted to leave that thought with your department. >> thank you. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor fewer. >> supervisor fewer: i have a few questions. quickly, i'm looking at your indicator and dcyf results and sco scorecards. i see that we have an example and year-end results. what i'm concerned about is impact by race. when you look at percentages that students that graduate high school within four years, are you determining your success using racial measures? >> yes. dcyf is looking at the data through a number of lenses, including by race. if i can show you the slides, i

will show you how the data is presented. as part of a results-based accountability process, our team created score cards where they looked at the information about a lot of key -- what became indicators. so this particular example shows our desire to increase the percentage of students that graduate within four years. so you can see that there is specific, colored lines that correspond to asian, latino, whites, black and native-americans and hawaiian and pacific islanders. there is also a come paparison the state. so we have these score cards on our website. there's a whole section. so you can get that information. and our data team would be happy to walk through it with you.

>> supervisor fewer: when you determine whether or not programs are funded for additional years, this is for five years. it's a long funding cycle. are we looking at those programs that actually have had impact for these particular students, meaning, are we using the funds to close the racial achievement rate. we have high graduation rates among white and asian, but very low with african-americans. are we using the money to close the gap of students that graduate and enter college, i could use that for every one of these measures. >> sure. we're looking at the race data. as part of the s.a.t., we called out a need for improved performance and supports for the

african-american, latino and pacific islander communities. >> supervisor fewer: i don't mean to interrupt you, but my question is -- are we funding programs that have impact to close this racial achievement gap? it means not funding overall, all students, but looking at this racial achievement gap and determining the funding of programs about the success they're having in closing the achievement gaps. >> absolutely. the department is looking at race and equity through every step in the process. the slide that was just up and can go back up again just showed some initial, projected information, based on our awardees and who they are planning to serve. you can see our target populations are projected to be at a higher level, more significantly than the pop laugs at -- population at large.

we'll be working on programs to make sure that the re real abilities for agencies that are targeting these to be successful. >> supervisor fewer: i'm not looking at participants. i'm looking at impact. i'm not concerned about number of participants. i'm looking at how it's impactful to close the racial achievement gap. that's the measure. that's not about equality. it's about equity. so that's the question i'm asking. it's not by showing me something that says, this is how many participants we have, but is it being used to show measurement impact on these groups that have

historically not had high achievement within the public schools, so to complement what the schools are doing and what are the outcomes for them around african-american, pacific islander and latino students specifically? do you understand my question. when you show me a slide that says participants, it's not what i'm asking for. i'm not asking for participants in a geographic area. i'm asking about the impact that the programs are having on the three racial groups. >> i hear you. we're on the same page with that. using r.b.a. there's a focus on how much is one step. if you are not serving the community, you are missing the boat, but how well you serve the community is important as well. each agency and each program has performance measures and those will be focused on the areas

you're concerned about and we'll monitor each c.b.o.'s performance. we are providing supports for the community-based groups. we're increasing our technical assistance and technical buildings to make sure they're successful because we view them as partners. >> supervisor fewer: thank you. can you tell me what programs were previously funded but not any longer 1 this five-year cycle? >> i have a seven-page excel sheet. i can send that to you. >> supervisor fewer: thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: do you feel like there were policy gaps in the process? >> i do not think so.

i know we've heard prom the community on priority areas and wanting to be sure that we hear their concerns and being responsive. because we went through a lengthy community needs assessment that did involve going before the community, meeting with department heads and meeting with you all, i have a lot of requests. there's always more we can do with more resources for any age group. i feel like we did the best allocation with what we could do. >> supervisor cohen: let me pose the question a different way. and your answer may be the same. does the dcyf granting system disadvantage citywide programs in favor of neighborhood-specific programs? >> i don't think that it does. we've funded a variety of programs that are city-wide as

well as community-based in a neighborhood. so obviously it doesn't speak to whether there's an advantage or disadvantage, but there was a lot of thought put through the process when the r.f.p. was being developed, trying to make sure that small providers were not penalized and keeping in context who the big players are that are providing service in every district, as well as making sure there are culturally competent neighborhood services. >> supervisor cohen: i appreciate the attention to cultural competency. some community members have mentioned that the parent engagement r.f.p. has not been issued. can you speak to that in the dcyf process? >> parent engagement -- i'm sorry. my brain's not jumping there. >> supervisor cohen: not a problem.

some organizations have reached out to my office that have felt left out of the process. one of which is parent engagement, the other is teen empowerme empowerment, for two examples. >> i'm happy to speak to that. i think teen 'em p-- empowermen should have been covered. if there is something you are hearing, let us know. family enbakement and collaborative health or truancy program and other identity specific programs will have r.f.p.s in the upcoming two years. i think the idea is to get the core programs out and especially for programs that are coordinating or leveraging the existing portfolio of grants, we

will wait a year or two so they will not duplicate and understand where to coordinate. >> supervisor cohen: thank you. supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: thank you, supervisor cohen, for flagging this, the agencies that have been providing services for a number of years, what do they do? if they don't have the funding, the service disappears. >> no services have disappeared because the way that we're administering the items that haven't been granted out yet are continuing the contracts that we have with existing providers for the additional year or two years. so if -- i think there's an intention to increase the level of family engagement services and that increase would not be realized until after the r.f.p.

when you look at the collaborative programs, we're keeping those funding stable, so there is continuity for those programs. in the meantime, we can do that work to get the r.f.p. in order so they are at the higher level with improvements that are made to those programs. >> supervisor sheehy: specifically parents for public schools, which is a tremendous resource. they say their funding will be hurt in july. as a board, i don't know why that's in our lap. you are talking to a parent that's been in public schools and i understand it's the value of the resource and that's in my bucket? how come? >> i think there's a lot of different organizations that have concerns about their funding level. when you do a new r.f.p., there

are some that get more and some less and some successful, some not. we have worked closely for parents with public schools over the past two years and will continue to work with them and attempt to address their concerns. >> supervisor sheehy: the cascade effect. because it can result in less people going to san francisco public schools. that's the way that many people have their first reaction was with the public school process. the lottery process is confusing. so the engagement is gone. saying you will fix it in the future, when you are stopping an ongoing program -- programs should not be falling through the cracks if it has that degree of effectiveness. because you have not let the r.f.p. for that service. >> you are not the only elected

official that has brought this up to me and i did some research. they're on our qualified list for technical assistance and capacity building. what they provide is essentially that kind of service for a lot of individuals. so we are currently -- so the timeline on that process has been the current fiscal year. it's been a few months later than the large grant r.f.p. and r.f.q., we've developed a final technical assistance and capacity building list. and my understanding is that they are one of the qualified providers. if there's a gap that needs to be filled, we can utilize the list. we have a lot of growth in our capacity building programs and my understanding is that the

team responsibility for that has a plan and if that organization were part of it, they should be in communication with them. if they're not part of it, we can have continued conversation about if there's a gap. if there is, how we can meet it, if that's appropriate. >> supervisor sheehy: am i going to have to fund them from here? that's the bottom line. >> supervisor cohen: this is a budget conversation, so we'll take it up. we'll have -- during public comment, we'll hear from folks that will speak to this item. we're going to move on. thank you very much. thank you, supervisor sheehy. mr. chi, appreciate your organization. the next group we'll hear from are the senior services team. is that you, cherine?

thank you. >> supervisor cohen: after this, we'll hear from pedestrian safety. maybe you can get on deck and be ready to go, so we can make the transition more smoothly. after that, street repair and repaving. >> i just had a question about whether the presentation is on here or if i need to load it from the thumb drive? >> supervisor cohen: did you load your presentation on there? >> i sent it over. >> supervisor cohen: okay. then we need to load it up.

>> supervisor cohen: as we get ready, we're going to hear from charine mcfadden. she will present on senior spending, targeting the dignity fund. we may have an opportunity to hear from jessica layman from the senior and disability

action. and then paula jones and i think anne q -- >> quitenze. >> supervisor cohen: for the food security task force. [please stand by]