300.57 f.t.e.s. largest increases in general fund supported positions in fiscal year 19-20, police, 73 positions. human services agency, 64 positions. and administrative services with 45 new general fund-supported positions. we also reported briefly on salary savings as we have reported previously, city departments spend from 2 to 3% less in general fund salaries and mandatory fringe benefits than budgeted each year. in 17-18, over 30 million, and 45.5 million on table five on the report. the projections are further refined closer to the end of the year, but what we had as of june 1st. we also reported briefly on the

discretionnary general fund. so, the city-wide general fund budget is increasing by 10.5%, from 5.5 billion in the current year to 6.1 billion in the proposed fiscal year 2019-20 budget, and after set asides and base lines, 3.6 billion in discretionary general fund revenues in 19-20. we also briefly reported on budgetary reserves as you have also heard from the controllers office. these reserves include the rainy day reserve, the general reserve and the budget stablization reserve. according to the major's budget book, 459 million at the end of 17-18, 9.2% of general fund revenues, and projected to reach target levels of 10% of revenues during the current year. we also reported briefly on the impact of the november 2018

ballot propositions. programs in the department of homelessness and supportive housing to be funded by proposition c, impose a half percent gross receipts tax on businesses with revenues above 50 million to fund homeless programs. out of this legislation, it's held up in litigation, the board adopted additional legislation to allow companies to waive the rights to a refund if proposition z is deemed unconstitutional, in exchange for 10% credit on their taxes on those funds paid under proposition c. i just want to make quick clarification in this section, in our, the top of page six, the second sentence says that the proposed fiscal year 2019-20 budget includes 110.3 million expenditures with proposition c waiver revenues, and transfer from the general fund. in fact, 20 million is assumed

from the proposition c gross receipts waiver, and the remainder is advance from the general fund if proposition c prevails in court. in the -- we did report briefly on the eras surplus allegations. it includes additional reimbursements for excess contributions to the educational revenue augmentation fund in the amount of 251.81 million. as shown in table seven on page seven of our report, the mayor proposed to spend the majority of the discretionary on affordable housing, homelessness, childcare facilities, vision 0 and emergency response equipment, among others. just briefly on the use of one-time funds to balance the budget. as you are aware, the five-year

financial plans notes the growth is not to match the expected expenditures. 154.4 million in prior year fund balance as a source of funds. one-time fund balance allows the city to avoid short-term deficits, over the long-term the structural deficit continues to increase. and finally, we did report briefly summarizing the board's budget priority areas and the proposed budget, and as you know in april and may of this year the board adopted three resolutions, and the city-wide budget priorities adopted by the board include resolution 224-19, covering homelessness and affordable housing issues. resolution 224.19, behavioral health priorities, and

resolution 262-19, covering cleaning green streets, small business support and increases for non-profit workers and that concludes my summary of my report. i'm available for any questions. >> great. any questions for our him? seeing none, thank you very much. appreciate that. so, before we start our departmental presentations, i think madam clerk, would you remind us, i know you called item number 6. would you call it again so we are going to take that department out of order. thank you. so, mr. wright, we have not finished those items yet. we will have public comment after we conclude items number 3 and 4. now we are going to hear item number 6, and we will hear public comment after we hear a presentation from item number 6. so, please, madam clerk, read

item 6. >> 2019-2020 office of the community investment and infrastructure, operating as successor agency to the redevelopment agency. >> we have with us nadia sesa, and the director of the office of community investment and infrastructure. >> madam clerk. set the timer at five minutes. thank you. >> thank you. good morning, supervisors. my name is nadia sesae, executive director of community investment and infrastructure. i should profess it's a separate legal entity while under the legislative authority under the board of supervisors and the mayor. so, with that, due to -- we have

three areas, at completion, provided 22,000 new housing units, approximately 30% of those will be affordable housing, 14 million square feet of new commercial space and over 400 acres of parks and open space. our goal is to increase san francisco's housing supply and support a diverse, equitable and inclusive city. this fiscal year we are expecting to complete major infrastructure. chase center would be completed this fiscal year, 19-20. headquarters, four buildings, and three medical buildings in mission bay. 250 room hotel on block one in mission bay. start construction of the folsom street construction project with

public works the project manager, and also pursue or stack design on open space in transbay with public works being the project manager as well. working with our developer in candlestick point to do the redesign of candlestick point and get some approvals and then at the request of some of our development partners in mission pay and transbay, looking at entitlement for office space, hotel and residential units. most will be coming through the board in the coming year. and high level for affordable housing, focus on the last item in fiscal year 19-20, be in construction and development for over 4,300 housing units. of that, 30% will be affordable. our budget is 640 million, with majority of that from prior period authority because of the amount of time it takes to

deliver these capital projects. 182 million from fund balance, major source of funds, property taxes. expect to issue bonds of up to 40 million, and developer payment is also a source. majority of expenditure will be for affordable housing, approximately 45%, and 42% of the budget would be for infrastructure and reimbursements for, to develop infrastructure expenses, community development and work force, and majority of our portfolio, debts as we fund these programs. year over year change is $104 million, and this is due to decreasing issuances and slow down in our spend down on existing affordable loans, partially offset by increase in property taxes, and the uses due

to the timing of developments, so that reduces our loans as well as infrastructure on mission bay, which is slowing down, because it's the most mature project area for you. there's no change in f.t. count, we have four positions vacant and in responding to the request from our chair, we have also included performance measures. we expect to complete 1,114 units among the various project areas, expect to complete 11 open space and we expect to meet opportunities for local businesses and workforce, target 30% of contracts throughout that year. with that, i'm happy to respond to any questions. >> colleagues, comments, questions? i believe this department has no changes in total f.t.e.s. they use no general fund dollars and also your expenditures would

decrease by 14% in affordable housing loans and debt payments as you are in a winding down phase. any other questions or comments? if not, public comment. any members of the public would like to comment on number 6. seeing none, i make a motion to move this to -- make a motion to move this to -- >> ok. open public comment. mr. wright, two minutes. >> public comment, city attorney is here, talk about redevelopment, i'm going to show you how you are not following your own rules and regulations and how you discriminate against the most vulnerable people, homeless in the street. rules and regulation, b of section 33413, the community redevelopment law, at least 15%

of all new rehabilitation dwellings, units developed in the planned area by public, private entities or persons other than the agency, affordable to housing costs to persons -- and families. very low and low and moderate incomes. not less than 40% of the dwellings required to be available at affordable housing costs to persons and families of very low and very low moderate income shall be available at affordable housing costs to very low income households. you are not following this rule. this is the mission construction, you price fix and you price gouge by means of taking that 40% of the pie and making the lowest income of the 40%, 2% of a.m.i., $36,300.

you take 10% of it and make it 55%, which is $44,400. you take 4%, and make it 90%, which is 92,650. then you take 17% and make it 96,850. then you take 7% and make it 150, which is $121,050 a year. now, since when does people making that much money supposed to be part of a low income and affordable housing? that's why i want you to sue jay kim and the san francisco giants for price-fixing because they financing it. >> thank you. thank you. mr. wright. mr. wright, thank you very much. mr. wright, thank you very much. would you actually address mr.

wright's questions about the affordable levels that this, this affordable housing will accommodate on a side bar conversation? thank you very much. any other public comments, seeing non, public comment is closed. i make a motion to move this to the board supervisors meeting of july 16th. positive recommendation. could i have a second? seconded by mandelman. take that without objection, thank you very much. and now let's get on to our department hearing, first one up is our city attorney, mr. dennis herera. please set the time for five minutes. >> i'm joined by the managing attorney and chief financial officer. in a nutshell, we are your lawyers, provide legal services

fo every city department, board, agency. assist in drafting legislation, objective legal advice in the city so decision makers like you did make decisions on a common understa understanding of the law. defend all legal claims and lawsuits and negotiate and recommend settlements for your approval and draft all legislation. as you well know, san francisco, as a city and county, is unique in california. run the gamut to hospitals, must span every legal specialty and practice area. the good work by our attorneys and staff has led our office to be recognized as one of the premier public law offices in the country. for fiscal year 2019-20, the proposed budget for the office is under $92 million. that is about $6 million or 7%

higher than our fiscal year budget of $86 million. three main factors in the change to our budget this year. first, mandated salary and fringe benefit increases. two, increase rent on the office space, and higher litigation expenses. we are right sizing the litigation budget, not kept pace with inflation. funds for e-discovery, allows us to transfer and search large amounts of evidence digitally. our litigation budget covers things like expert witnesses, investigation work and other litigation costs. these are investments that pay dividends down the road in the form of better legal outcomes for taxpayers. the only increase to our staffing is the addition of three positions. two attorneys and a paralegal, to deal with protecting san francisco rate payers interest in pg&e bankruptcy and the feasibility of acquiring some of pg&e power distribution network. pg&e situation is unique and has the potential to profoundly

impact all in san francisco. our view is this up front investment in staff is needed to ensure the city receive payments and services owed by pg&e and to support reorganization approaches that protect the interests of the city. as the city evaluates whether to acquire pg&e facilities that serve san francisco, substantial legal and political work need to be done. if the city proceeds to acquire pg&e assets, my office will present and support acquisition proposal. additional demands on the office include upholding the rule of law and protecting san francisco's policies from the trump administration that continues to threaten both. as you know, we have so far been successful in defending san francisco sanctuary laws and protecting $2 billion in funding that the federal government had threatened to withhold. money that largely funds programs that help our most vulnerable residents, including seniors, people with

disabilities, low income families and foster children. also party to stop, to stop the trump administration attempt to add a census question to the census. the case is currently before the u.s. supreme court. adding such a question to the census is a brazen attempt to put a thumb on the scales and would jeopardize the accuracy of the population count. including large populations like san francisco. that would correspond to a drop in federal funds for programs that help residents like medicaid, temporary assistance for needy families, to name a few. administration is trying a new angle of attack, threatening nearly $1 billion in health care and human service funding if san francisco does not allow discrimination in health care. trump administration refusal of care rule announced last month would disproportionately impact women, lgbtq community and other social and medically vulnerable populations who could be denied needed medical services.

i'm proud we were the first to take the trump administration to court over the rule, filing the lawsuit within hours of it being announced. we will aggressively pursue cases like these, to ensure that all in san francisco no matter who they are have access to the health care and services they need. we are going to defend funding the city is legally entitled to. just one final, i'll skip over some things, supervisor fewer, add one other thing. additionally at the request of this board, our office in january took over handling civil conservatorships for those unable to care for themselves. we have a legal and paralegal dedicated specifically to those cases, started on january 1st. set up and organized efficient system and making solid progress and we look forward to working with you and the budget and legislative analyst to ensure we have proper resources in place to address the city's

priorities. >> thank you mr. city attorney. colleagues, any questions, yes. supervisor ronen. >> thank you, and thank you for all your tremendous work. a quick question and i was just trying to do some quick research, it's been a long time since i practiced law. >> me, too. >> i remember us having a conversation a while back about your office's ability to recover penalties in a consumer protection context. i'm blinking on the law, what law. >> 17200. >> thank you. >> thank you so much, that's the law i was looking for. and that despite your office does tremendous work. so you recover a lot of not only attorney's fees, but you know -- penalties that are allowed under that law. >> yes. >> but often have not been able

to expand whether it's affirmative unit to bring more of those public protection laws using those funds. is that still the case? >> no. actually, we are adequately staffed in that, and over the course of the last several years working with the mayor's office and this board, we have been able to get the resources that we need and you are correct. when we recover moneys under that that are penalties, they are specifically designated to be used under state law for continuing consumer protection work and they have to be utilized for that. the mayor's office and this board have been very supportive. so, i'm getting, i have the resources that i need. >> fantastic. so we don't have unspent funds -- >> i used those to support our work. >> fantastic. thanks. >> supervisor stefani. >> thank you, chair fewer. good to see you, city attorney. i have a question regarding gun

violence restraining orders and want to make sure we implement that program successfully, since it was passed by the state in 2014 and want to make sure you have the staffing necessary to do so, and want to inquire how with the staffing you have now we'll be able to do that successfully. >> i know this has been a priority for you, and in consultations with the mayor's office, i'm confident in this fiscal year with he can support whatever is designed with the resources we have. i'm not asking for additional resources because quite frankly, as this is being designed by the police department and the standards that are being put in place, i don't have yet a clear understanding about how many cases we are going to have. so, i would like to use this next fiscal year to have an understanding of how many cases we are going to bring, how much resources we need, and i am confident, you have my

commitment i will do that with resources that i have, and in the event that we determine over the course of this next year we need additional resources, i will go back to the mayor's office and to you to ask for additional resources and assistance. but i don't think it would be responsible to tell you i needed more when i don't have a complete understanding of how many cases i'm going to bring. but you have my commitment that i will do and be aggressive and do everything that we need with the resources i have. >> thank you. i think we all appreciate you not asking for more at this time. so, thank you very much. i appreciate the commitment. >> president yee. >> i hope you understand my question, since i'm not an attorney. in regards to the -- to the expenditure recovery, i don't know, does that include things like when you go after the

airbnb hotel, for instance 2.3 million recovered from that? >> supervisor, are you referring to what supervisor ronen initially raised with me, is that what you are asking me? >> i was going to -- i'm raising this separately, maybe as related. but -- in your sources of revenues, there's a big chunk that's coming from expenditure recovery, and i assume that's from -- 61 million. >> no, not where it comes from. my chief financial officer. >> good morning, dora okai, 62 million you see is recovery from other city departments. recovery department, we bill other city departments and that line is showing the recovery we

get from them. >> so then when you go after a company, for instance, and you win the lawsuit, or the case, you will get some funding or get some money from winning the case to pay for the attorneys? >> well, the funding usually goes back to refund, reimburse the department that originally paid for our services. >> is it reflected on the budget here? >> no, because we actually -- we pay back to the department. the originally funded our services. >> got it. and other related question would be that in this summary of your protecting neighborhoods, it

has, you were able to recover her, maybe from fines, $2.3 million. from the airbnb case. >> correct. >> where does that funding go? >> often times when we bring cases like that, that's, some of that money when we bring back, we bring cases back, sometimes some of that money, it depends how it's defined. some of the money will go back to a city department that may have paid for our service t often times t.b.i. will pay us money to go after somebody, or the planning department. and we return money to them, for attorney's fees. then a separate component that would be called penalties, for example. that money does not go back to the city department. that goes into the 17200 pot of money that i was referring to when i was talking to supervisor ronen, and that helps us fund,

and that's a matter of state law, that can only be used for consumer protection. so, i can utilize that money to continue the work i do bringing consumer protection in other cases. >> so in this specific case, the airbnb case, where does that go? >> i think that money was -- i can get that information for you, but i think it was divided up, some went back to the planning department, and a case where we did have money that went back to the department who paid for our service, and also there was penalties that then we put into our 17200 pot to use for additional consumer protection work. >> okay. that's helpful. thank you. >> and then i have a question, mr. city attorney. thank you so much for all your work in protecting us as a city and county. i see that you are increasing your f.t.e.s by two attorneys and one paralegal and then that is because of the possibility of

acquiring pg&e or whatever that thing is. >> that is correct. >> aren't we currently doing work already around pg&e. >> yes. >> don't you already have attorneys doing that work? >> we have historically, as you know, done is pg&e-related work and yes, i have attorneys that are doing that. but the volume, the increase as a result of the bankruptcy, is, and the expertise, is beyond what i could handle with the existing staff that i have now. this is a major undertaking, and ramps up exponentially, and in order to provide you and the mayor's office and the p.u.c. with the guidance that you are going to need in order to make policy choices that you might want to make with respect to whether you want to acquire assets, i -- we need that staff in order to provide you that legal advice. >> currently, how many attorneys do you have working on that

case? >> i -- i have it divided up in so many places, supervisor, that i don't want to speak out of turn. let me tell you this. on my energy team i have six lawyers. but they do energy and communications, telecommunications, and the like. they don't all work for pg&e. i also have a fair amount of litigation farmed out throughout the office, that is not done on that energy team. but i can get you a break down of hours. >> these two attorneys specifically pg&e. >> correct. >> and not part of what the other energy team is doing. >> that is correct. >> and so the 17200 found that you have, you put the money back in, now, is that self-sustaining. are you paying for attorneys out of that fund and not out of the regular general fund. >> yes, that's correct. not all of them, but i think we have at least three lawyers, yes. three lawyers that we pay for.

i always have to sustain that fund or would not be able to employee the lawyers. >> how many people are on the team? >> about 10, 10 lawyers. >> and you said that this fund sustains how many of them? seven did you say? >> no, about three of them. >> three, and the rest from general fund? >> comes from money that is provided to us from the mayor's office and general fund contributions, and sometimes that work is, for example, the airport, i'm just going to give you an example, the airport, for example, we are doing a case on behalf of the airport. they are paying for that. but it's done off that team. so, it's supported by a mix of general fund, consumer protection, and sometimes by other departments who are enterprise departments. >> sure. so, when you are doing work around the pg&e you are -- so the p.u.c. also is a partner of this, is that correct? >> that's correct. >> does the p.u.c. have their

own attorneys, or use the city attorney? >> no, i have people -- i have an energy and telecommunications team that does most of the energy work, but a p.u.c. team that does a lot of other things. water and all sorts of things. contracts, yes. >> okay. thank you very much. supervisor mandelman. >> thank you, mr. city attorney for being here and your fine work. i have a question coming up in the context of this department, but going to be a question that i have for all departments, how we think about vacant positions and if we see, if there's a way for us to see if i'm missing in the documents before me, or if i'm going to see in the b.l.a. report how many of the f.t.e.s are unfilled at the moment. >> yeah. if not, i'll just ask. >> you want to ask me. >> sure. so, just so you know, we are proposing to go from 309 f.t.e.s

and 312, and right now we have 16 vacant positions in the process of being filled through the recruitment and interview process. >> and are you -- >> not just lawyers, that's everything. >> and generally you are able to fill the positions you are trying to fill? >> yes. >> how long have you had those vacant, mr. city attorney? >> that's what i have now. we go through the entire year of people come and go. i can't tell you how long these 16 vacant positions have been. but it's a constantly evolving thing. i constantly go through having positions vacant. >> ok. so you currently have 16 vacant positions, and looking to add three positions, is that right? >> that's correct. >> two attorneys and one paralegal. >> any more questions? >> so going forward, am i missing a place i should be looking for that information? is it going to come to us -- >> no, i think supervisor through the chair, the question

should best go to department who can answer it, and say it's a key part of the analysis, the budget and legislative analysts reports, so you will see the information in the reports where often recommending a reduction or elimination of positions based on vacancy analysis. >> all right. 16 is pretty consistent with kind of what you would expect to have. >> nothing unusual about this number at any particular time i have vacant positions. people are coming and going. >> ok. thank you. any other questions for comments for city attorney, seeing none, thank you very much. appreciate it. thank you. now let's call up the civil service and i think that we have executive director michael brown.

>> good morning, supervisors. >> good morning. >> my name is michael brown, executive officer with the civil service commission. i'll be before you very briefly. civil service commission is an independent commission, however, the department is what we are talking about today in terms of the funding. this is for the civil service commission budget submission for fiscal years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021. so, overview, this is a high level overview. the purpose for the civil service commission per the charter, charged with the duty providing qualified persons for appointment to service of the city and county of san francisco.

the commission is responsible for establishing, regulating, overseeing and serving as final arbitor of the city and county of san francisco's mayored system. i want to pause here to just reinforce, there's a difference between talking about the civil service department -- commission department and the civil service commission itself, a five-member body. i'll talk more about it. the mission commission, the commission's mission is to establish, ensure and maintain equitable and credible merit system for public service employment for the citizens of san francisco. the commission's goal is to consistently provide the best qualified candidates for public service in a timely and cost effective manner. equal employment policy, the goal and policy of the commission to provide fair treatment of applicants in all aspects of employment without regard to membership in a category and nepotism or favoritism from happening.

under the charter, authority and responsibilities and also under the administrative code, the commission is charged with the definitions, administration and organization of the merit system, and managing the rules and civil service commission office itself. the establishment of policies, procedures governing the merit system, ability to review the conduct and actions of employees and departments in merit system matters, including exempt appointments through inspection, service and investigations and audits. appeals over merit system matters, reviews, discrimination complaints, examination matters and classification actions taken by the human resource director, director of transportation, municipal transportation agency or executive director of the civil service commission. feasibility for public employees hired through the merit system to perform services to the public as a priority. does wage setting and benefit

setting responsibilities for elected city officials, members of the board of supervisors and prevailing wage certification. employee relations ordinance, maintain that for the city. coordinates administration of unfair labor practice charges for peace officers and unrepresented employees, appeals of bargaining unit assignments, category designation of management, supervisory and confidentiality recognition elections for labor organizations, sorry, bargaining unit assignments, category designation of management, supervisor and certification and decertification affiliation, disaffiliation or merger of labor organizations. so, in looking at our budget, our budget really is to maintain our office itself. there is no additions to, in terms of staff we have.

we have actually six f.t.e. and it's to maintain the administrative function for the commissioners themselves. and that's basically, and the 2018-19, 1,262,072. projected, or request for the 19-20 year, 1,336,124, and projected to be 1,392,655 for 20-21. increases in the commission budget over the next two fiscal years are primarily due to projected increases in employees' salaries, per the city labor agreements and projected agreements infringe benefit costs. no expected changes in the f.t.e. count, and no projected substantial overtime cost over the next two fiscal years. some of the projects and things we are working on and this is aside from this, the administrative duties for the commissioners themselves.

is we are working on deidentification review and progress as since that has been newly initiated. we want to see how it's actually affecting the merit system and so d.h.r. will provide reports to the commission, they are due but not able to provide them yet due to contract negotiations, and the same thing for the municipal transportation agency, what changes need to occur, what has been happening since we invoked the identification and the rule changes. review of the exempt policy and charter requirements, the meetings an ongoing thing with the civil service commission in review talking how we can better serve the city with changes to our civil service rulings. revisit structure r, recommendation from d.h.r. but not in our rules in terms of the point structure, and something we will be looking at as a policy and procedure issue with the department of human resources going forward.

and appeal language, i sound like i'm already past my time. >> yes, so mr. brown, if you would not mind, we have your power point and it lists the projects very clearly here. i would like to open this up for questions or comments from my colleagues. do i have any comments from my cou colleagues, none. so you are differentiating between the department and the commission. and what you are presenting is the budget for the civil service commission. so the support staff to actually help and assist with the work of the commission itself, is that correct? >> correct. >> ok. and how many commissioners are there, i'm sorry that i -- >> there are actually five commissioners for the civil service commission. there is one vacancy currently. >> five commissioners, and six staff members. can you tell me what the staff members are? >> we have the department head or the executive officer, myself, i have a deputy director, i have a senior personnel -- senior human

resources analyst and a personnel analyst, or human resource analyst 1241. a personnel clerk, who manages our rules and online websites, 1203 and 1246 i believe is the front desk person. is that 5 or 6 -- >> that's six, i think. so, not knowing a lot about your department, but this is a commission. i'm just going to state that i think that six f.t.e.s of this caliber and salaries is actually i feel kind of high for, to support the work of five commissioners and of the commission. and i say that actually not knowing a lot about your department but just considering this is a commission, and that you have six staff members supporting the work of the commission and not so much the department itself but the work of the commission. and i just want to put that on

record because i was wondering, because i also, and i think this is very true and my colleagues, that we get a little confused with the civil service department. so i understand that there is, you have no changes in your total f.t.e., and that you are maintaining it at six f.t.e.s. how long have you been at this budgeted f.t.e. level? >> i have been in the office in the position i'm in since 2015. and the staff of six has been in existence for prior to that, i don't know when it established, it was actually set at one point, it was more and it has been reduced. it's not only just the duty and the responsibility for the commission. we have internal responsibilities in the department and doing inspection service, not part of what the

civil service commission actually reviews. that is actually the staff of the senior personnel analyst or human resource analyst and the analyst conducting the inspection service and doing the audits which commission has asked the staff to do, and in terms of hires and exempt appointments and looking at those things as well. so, a lot of internal things we do, other than just the administrative functions for the commission itself. the preparation of the material, that is a large component of what we do in terms of staff. we have meetings which are the first and the third mondays of every month. but there is large reports that have to be reviewed in terms of confidentiality, making sure those things are not going to be exposing confidential information and correspondence that goes back and forth between the apelants and the departments, so a lot of internal work that the commissions will not see until they are heard before the commission. >> thank you very much. appreciate it. any other comments or questions? mr. brown, thank you for your

time today. appreciate it. let's get on to the next one. human rights commission and executive director sheila davis. >> hello. let me just -- >> good morning, miss davis. >> put my glasses on so i can actually see. ok. just let me know when to -- where is the clock, over there. >> madam clerk, start the clock for miss davis at five minutes. >> so, i will not spend a lot of time reading for you, like the mission is there, human rights commission is coming up on its

55th anniversary, we will be doing some special things in july to revisit that mission which really, we want to help people remember that was born out of the civil rights movement and that it was born out of hopefully avoiding what was happening in riots, and that was one of the movements around the human rights commission. strategic goals are to disrupt systems of inequity and amplify community voice. this image here you have a booklet that was created by the young people at mission delores academy, highlights the work they were doing to address bullying and other issues that were happening in their school, which is something that we do with middle school students and high school students around san francisco. this is the budget and the -- the numbers piece of it, if you want to ask me more questions, we can definitely drill down on

that as we move forward. major initiatives in who they serve. the discrimination division, focussed on people victimized by discriminatory behavior, we do the mediation and investigations in our office, the fair chance ordinance, the government alliance for racial equity, this year we have been doing more work around juvenile justice reform. my brother and sister's keeper initiative, office of racial -- conversations around the pending legislation. opportunities for all.

>> i will talk about that as we move to the next slides around performance measures, office of racial equity, there has been a lot of conversation, a lot of

interest. i'm no supervisor fewer's office has been working on this, contrary to public belief, we are glad to see traction in that regard. we performed with the blue ribbon panel as well as with the legislation that was put forward recently, and then these last two are about the workforce alignment or alignment of all the different systems that are happening, and so we are trying to do some work with the san francisco foundation, as well as stanford spark lab to have a better understanding of the diverse pathways and whether we are actually making the impact we want as a city to evaluate some of that, so these are to some of the outlines of how we do performance measures within those different buckets. i wanted to drill down before time is out, just specifically around the opportunities for all pieces that we launch in october in response to the mayor's office. i wanted to highlight these partners because what they expressed to us is this program,

this year, is allowed them to have more funding to get to the young people who may not be job ready, or may not realize until summer arrives that they need -- they should have done applications of the process in february. we will be working with the undocumented students and supporting them, and then i will just end it there because that is my time, i think. twenty-four seconds. all of those groups there are just basically getting -- covering the cost of 50 students there's funding that we raised outside, as well as the funding that the mayor has allocated. we are very happy to say that 18 % of the young people, through very intentional outreach are very african-american. eighteen% are latin x., which is not typical of what we see in this outreach, and then just our gender breakdown, in and the top zip codes right now.

i will leave it at that. i will say the last slide shows 40% of the young people we have known so far have gotten jobs. some of them have never had jobs before, and 25% have had one job with less than four weeks of employment. >> thank you. supervisor ronen? >> thank you. i wanted to start off with the closed juvenile hall working group. now it is on its first reading because we made an amendment, and added a couple of seats on the working group on tuesday, but it is likely to go into effect. has anything been budgeted, in the department, that will be overseeing this process and the working group in the budget to be able to do that work? >> i did have a conversation with supervisor walton's office. we started outlining internally

that it is not a conversation that i have had with the budget office because i wasn't sure where we were. i have also had, because i know in the legislation it talked about consultants. i have had some conversations with nis, who was previously with spark, did some of the work with the department of homelessness just around equity and issues, and challenges around what it might look like for us to build all of that. >> do you have an estimate for that budget? >> the consultants, based on some of the other work we are doing, we are imagining that cost will be between 50 and $100,000 between the course of two years, and the question would be about staffing. i know that the h.r.c. would staff that, and it is a matter of whether we can leverage existing staff to support that, or whether that is taking one person and having them be part of their time dedicated to that.

i also believe there are stipends involved for the working group members, so that would also be determined based on how much they are supposed to get, but i would imagine, based on conversations with supervisor walton's office between three and $500,000. >> and that is not included in the mayor's budget? >> yeah. >> okay. is any budget for the blue-ribbon panel of the working group for the juvenile justice reform group. >> there has been leveraging of dollars in terms of department children youth and their families, and i think that there's trying to find some additional outside resources. we have been, in terms of our office, we have been leveraging existing staff and contracts to support that work, and i have been doing, i have been very hands-on myself. >> but there hasn't been any

additional? >> not through our budget. >> okay. and then the opportunities for all program, which i have heard great things about from many of the community -- community partners that you just listed out, particularly from jamestown and how exciting and amazing it was for the youth, i'm just wondering, what is the full budget for opportunities for all >> currently the opportunities will be placed no ew d. we have leveraged our existing contracts. one of the things i'm talking about with the budget office is if we took on substantial cost this year, and we just want to make sure that some of the funding will get transferred back to h.r.c., but there are some things that make sense in terms of sitting in oh, ew d.'s budget because they have already

the infrastructure to support the grantmaking, to support the education liaison. a couple of things have come up for us in terms of funding beyond stipend, or beyond the service providers, specifically the fact that the majority of young people that don't have access to the program, the career technical education programs at the school district, they don't have access because of credit recovery or because of their grades, and if we don't get their grades on track and they still won't have access to that. similarly, during the summer, they have to go to summer school so summer jobs aren't available to them. we are trying to build up about $5 million that has been put into the oh, ew d. budget. a good portion of that is, around a million of that is specifically for the service providers to be able to help with community outreach and

engagement. the studies that we are seeing show that young people and people in general, in terms of moving from moving out of poverty, need to feel valued in their community, and we want to make sure we are also valuing the community partners that lead that work. there is a little over a million that is put in for education liaisons and support. there is also money specifically for hope s.f. students and african-american achievement leadership initiative groups to get year-round. we found, the last two summers, just through during the school district, there's a group called black star. they are going into the front third summer. we have seen that a lot of those students are now in credit recovery, and it just goes against the whole reason why the summer program was created. we are trying to figure out for the hope s.f. and the black star

students how to be more intentional and to address the disparities that are all tied together, and if we don't work together to do that with mentors and education support, we will keep seeing the same group of students. >> do you know the whole budget opportunities for all? >> the budget is $520 million that is currently allocated toward -- and that is through oewd, and that is through the course of two years. >> so you don't have a budget in h.r.c. for the work that you do to supplement? >> right, we are negotiating to have that. >> and you are looking for how much? >> for us, we are going to get additional staff, and then we are still negotiating between three and 500,000 to get put back into the h.r.c. budget.

i want to be clear, too, the human rights commission, the department of children and their families, office of economic and workforce development, and the school district, this is been a great opportunity for us. we have had very serious conversations about what the gaps are, and how to do a better job of addressing those gaps. the funding is going there because they have the infrastructure -- that is what we are drilling down on. and part of that is how we work together to address that. >> so the 300 to 500,000 that you are speaking about would come from this five-point to and be transferred from oewd? i see.

and then does sfusd also get funding, or not? >> there is $1 million specifically for stipends, and allen -- i want to say this year , school has -- in school has gotten out, june 4th through now, we received 231 applications. what we are seeing since school has let out is all the kids that this was really created for, are now starting to come online, and most of them don't have the school sets -- skill sets. there is a lot of money putting specifically for young people. it is very little comparatively for staff. most of the money is going to service providers to support young people or directly to young people. >> i see. so are all of the opportunities for young people now going through opportunities for all, or is there additional programs that are out there? >> the mayor's intention is that as we use this to centralize and get an understanding that they will all fall under opportunities for all. currently we have, for the

opportunities for all that we are connecting, we've gotten to got in 2,000 new applicants in the last three months, and then there are 2,000 that are three youth work, project pull, and other programs that we are also counting. we are trying to get a better handle on what is real. we know in the past we have had these numbers of who was employed during the summer, and we are also using this to get a better handle on that. we are working with the university of san francisco to track. right now there is youth work that we are counting as part of that, and then we are trying to see what other programs exist, but we have about 50 departments that are also sharing our information that we are tracking through opportunities as well. >> so the budget for youth works is included in this? >> no, that is extremely large. >> i also want to say that since this budget sits in oewd, and

they are coming before us, this is probably where those questions should be directed because they need to be drilled down into that budget. thank you. >> correct. director davis did share that it is across mainly three city departments, of which, over $5 million is through oewd, and we are working to figure out what portion can be sent back to h.r.c. to ensure continuity of services. there are positions budgeted in h.r.c.'s budget. i believe three positions, two positions, four positions, apologies, about four positions in h.r.c. to support the continuity of work. and milling dollars a year for the stipend. it is actually $8 million total when you take into account the position. and oewd can speak to the specificity of what is budgeted, but it is a very coordinated effort of which h.r.c. plays a main convening and implementation role