>> caller: hello, supervisors. my name is blaine ossko, with the state and government affairs based in the state of hawaii. thank you for the opportunity to highlight the unintended consequences contemplated in the proposal set forth by the healthy workers' ordinance. as a follow-up from last week we have confirmed that the b.l.a. cost impact report was woefully under in its cost estimates and it inaccurately paints the impact. and the math really matters here. s.f.o. is among the most expensive in the country for airlines and passengers. significantly it increases the cost of doing business at s.f.o. and it will have a negative impact on the supply and demand for air service and it will result in additional job losses. this kind of legislation limits the competition and restricts the growth, especially for

smallerriers like hawaiian airlines at s.f.o. and has unsustainable increases for our carrier. in addition to that i want to point out some specific burdens that exist with respect to the h.w.o. very rarely in any job marketplace can you find plans that are available to employees at no cost, let alone to entire families at no cost. the h.w.o. mandate coverage is so far beyond what even the most generous employers offer their employees, including the city of san francisco, with their own employees. specifically hawaiian airlines and our workforce is highly unionized and we negotiate collective bargaining agreements which are voted upon and approved by employees that include generous wage and benefit packages. we do not believe that this legislation should supersede our collective bargaining agreements or interfere with our relationships with our labor partners. thank you again for another opportunity to weigh in on such a monumental decision. i strongly urge you to oppose

the ordinance. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: go ahead. go ahead and speak lisa. go ahead, just speak. >> caller: hi, good morning. i'm (indiscernible) my husband is sick and we tried to find out (indiscernible) he had surgery (indiscernible). to go back to work.

(indiscernible) he cannot go to the workplace without pain. the doctor says that he cannot go back to work unless his benefits (indiscernible). cannot afford the medical bills. it's affecting the whole family and myself. i do not know where i will get the money to pay the medical bills. (indiscernible) money from

work is not enough to pay for my bills. (indiscernible) it is not enough to support the family. (indiscernible) i'm still struggling to pay medical bills. especially now that there is covid-19 and our hours are cut. now there is covid-19 outbreak (indiscernible). >> speaker's time has elapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, good morning, supervisors. my name is laurie thomas and i'm the executive director of the

golden gate restaurant association, we represent restaurants and cafés in san francisco and the surrounding bay area. thank you for hearing this item today and for listening to all of our comments. i'm calling in on behalf of our local restaurant and hospitality industry, that we're very concerned that we'll be impacted by this legislation. and while we share the concerns regarding workers and health care, particularly during this pandemic year, i have very strong concerns that there will be unintended consequences that will affect our struggling restaurant and hospitality industry. we all know that due to covid-19 that the airlines have already had to drastically reduce their service levels with the lack of both business and lose leisure travel being cut back. and we know that s.f.o. is still only barely back to about i believe 20% of the pre-pandemic traffic through the t.h.s. checkpoints. less traffic is a direct

correlation to less business for many of our shuttered airport restaurants and businesses, as well as our concern that this will affect the restaurants and businesses in san francisco itself. we are very concerned that we need the airlines and the industry to be able to return to pre-pandemic service levels. and we feel that this legislation, while again well intended, will significantly impact their ability to do so. so the cost of this legislation i'm afraid goes much further than just to those employers directly impacted at s.f.o. you could argue whether or not they can afford that, but the concerns are is what this will do for greater community. so we're very concerned that this legislation would have unintended consequences of causing continued reduced traffic both in the terminal of s.f.o. and also to our city of s.f.o. that contributes, unintentionally i'm sure to more

lost businesses -- >> speaker's time is elapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: hi, i am emily abraham. and the health of businesses and its employees and also believes that this ordinance will have a much larger impact on the well-being of our city than expected. s.f.o. has come out as the previous speakers have mentioned with an updated estimate with the financial impacts. based on the impact report, airline, operators and service providers employed 20,634 workers. and the cost of offering qualifying families the proposed legislation would result in an estimated additional annual cost as high as $163 million, depending on the health plan. the industries in s.f.o. are

essential to providing san francisco with its tourism base which generates $819 million in taxes and fees in the city in 2019. the high added cost would lead to reductions, and the ability to bring in tourists. s.f.o. provide tourists that go into the city and then will spend $26.4 million each day for our local businesses. beyond this concern of the impact on tourism, we urge you to give clarity around the definition section of this ordinance. the intent of this legislation is to for only the employees, and it seems to apply to any sub-tenant and contractor, etc. if this applies to restaurants, it would be devastating. we encourage you to look at the impacts outlined by the previous speakers. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is steven cornell and i

own a store in san francisco for 39 years. i'm also the legislative representative with council district working. tourism is -- as we heard, is the number one business in san francisco. we have all of our neighborhood employees, and our customers, and i know this because i have been directly affected. all of our businesses are really hurting, especially those directly looking for visitors. this is not a time to add a financial burden. our local businesses are affected. people come into my store are airline workers and hotel workers, bus drivers and convention workers, restaurant workers, they all directly are affected by tourism. they all live in our neighborhoods and they are our neighbors. we need a strong visitor -- strong visitor business to keep

our neighborhood businesses going. please, i really encourage you to have a full economic report that includes the whole city's economic base. thank you very much for considering it. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, my name is reesea parker and i'm the vice president of labor and employment and litigation at the airlines for america. i appreciate the opportunity to speak to our concerns that this proposal is preempted by federal law. when they regulated the airlines, the airline deregulation act, the a.d.a., it prohibited states by regulating them with any state law for crisis services. the supreme court held that the a.b.a. not only targets airlines but even those who are direct or indirect. this ordinance affects the prices and the services.

and the ordinance will increase the costs to passengers by $1.83 per ticket. that's an effect on the prices. and based this, we know that the b.l.a. estimate is understated and the actual impact is much higher, as much as five times higher. moreover, s.f.o. is already an expensive airport in which to do business and this will reduce flights into s.f.o. which has an impact on routes. and it will reduce the number of employees needed which impacts the services to passengers. and we are concerned that the operations will appear to be the deliberate intent of this proposal. although this is a city ordinance, not every employer at the airport -- our understanding is that retail food and beverage, car rental employees are not subject to the requirements. only carriers, flights support and aviation contractors and

service providers. in other words, only those costs who hit the airlines' bottom line. and we caution the board that the t proposals will have impac. we want you to evaluate from a litigation perspective. thank you for taking the time to look at our concerns. >> clerk: thank you for your comments. next speaker, please. >> caller: good morning, supervisors. my name is david lee and i'm an economist with airlines for america. like others i read the october 23rd letter to the board with great interest and it validated our concerns that the b.l.a.'s cost analysis was light. s.f.o. now estimates that the $9.50 fee will result in an additional annual cost of $163

million, and nearly a five fold increase from the original $43 million estimate. i have more information for the committee to consider. a few of the members reported that the financials for the september quarter and as you know that our situation remains dire. the past quarter, the passenger carriers collectively lost $127 million every day for a total of $11.7 billion. if you break this down in total, we lost an average of $182 per passenger. we are nowhere close to covering our costs and those who think that we can simply pass on the higher costs to our customers at this time. this proposal does not help with the recovery and the ongoing efforts to serve the community. given our concerns i kindly ask that you do a more thorough economic benefit cost analysis of this proposal.

the b.l.a. analysis failed to account for benefits delivered by the proposal and failed to account for the unintended risks and burdens that will not only hurt the air service and the jobs, but hurt the bay-area's hospitality sector, a crucial part of san francisco's economy. thank you for your time and consideration. >> clerk: thank you for your communities. currently there is one caller in the queue and 15 listening. if you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. next caller, please. >> caller: hi, supervisors, good afternoon. i am shawn williams. i too am with airlines for america. we are the trade association of the major passenger and cargo airlines here in the united states. a few points that i wanted to make that have not yet been covered. one is i know that there's been some discussion about the cares act during this whole debate in

the last few weeks and the payroll support program that has benefited airline employees and airline workers throughout the country. there is a myth that has been perpetuated that this is some sort of a bailout for the airlines and, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. the payroll support program and the cares act is a passthrough directly to employees so that the employees at airlines can stay on the payroll, maintain their health benefits, and continue to get paychecks and continue to be employed so when there's a return to service and a return to demand for airline service, that those employees are there and ready to go. number two, i wanted to point out that, you know, it was stated earlier in this meeting that the healthy workers' ordinance, you know, is being implemented or considered so that all of the workers at the airport have the benefits that are contemplated in it. i would point out that that goal may be what the goal is, but that it is not what the

ordinance says or does. in fact, the healthy workers' ordinance applies to airlines and service providers and the like, but not to restaurants and rental car companies and others. it's just targeted at one industry -- the airline industry. that undermines any argument that this is for public health purposes. you know, other employees and passengers have contact at restaurants and retailers, etc., are excluded from the ordinance. it also makes it very clear that this ordinance is aimed squarely at the airline industry and not connected to a broader goal of ensuring healthy terminals or public health. lastly, the ordinance does not contemplate other essential workers who work through the city, either at grocery stores or other places of employment that may have been deemed essential. >> your time is elapsed. >> clerk: thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. >> madam chair, that completes the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very

much, public comment is closed on item number 1. supervisor walton or mandelman, do you have any comments with the public comment that we have heard? we do like to add anything to the conversation. yes. >> i will try to be brief. but, you know, i want to thank certainly the workers who called in and i want to thank the representatives of the airline industry and the representatives of our local restaurant industry, chamber of commerce. we heard a lot about the dire state of the airline industry national three and here in san francisco and i think that there's no one on this board who is not sympathetic to the economic devastation that is being wrought across this country in every single -- in almost every single area. but i -- i do think that the

next step that some of those folks took is not the right one. which is that getting their operational costs under control requires continuing a state in which workers cannot access health care, are afraid that if they get sick they won't be able to see a doctor, are afraid if they take covid home to their families that their families will not have health care. are afraid that if they're hospitalized they will be carrying thousands, in some cases tens of thousands of dollars of debt forward with them. i don't think that it can be the case that the right answer to the woes, the national woes of our airline industry, which really do require federal intervention to solve, should be that san francisco's own airport needs to perpetuate a situation in which some of our

lowest-waged workers, immigrants, people of color, do not have access or at least real access to affordable high-quality health care. that would be wrong at any time and it's particularly wrong now in the midst of a pandemic. i heard the comments about this is not the right time. this is actually the necessary time because these folks are -- as we all are -- are in fear for their health as never before. so that's, you know, i think that it is wrong thinking. it is also bad for san francisco. we want our airport to be a safe place for the people who fly through s.f.o., for the people coming home, for the tourists when they come back. we want them to be confident that the people who work at the airport are able to see doctors and to get checked out when they have a tickle in their throat or when they have a gnawing pain in their stomach or some other part of their body. that is necessary for us for the good operation of our airport as

well as for being, you know, the city that we want to be. i do want to thank united airlines for putting forward their amendment, their proposed amendment. we're looking at it, but on first pass it seems like that particular amendment would basically strip out most of the employee groups who we are hoping to cover through this legislation. you know, we heard various things about restaurants, whether the restaurants and retail concessions in the terminals are covered. i recognize that the gdra has concerned thaconcerns that they. and they are not covered by this legislation but they are already required to provide high-quality health care to their employees. so, you know, i think to the notion that this is somehow targeting the airline industry -- this is not targeting the industry. it is not setting prices. it is simply saying that in our airports that there needs to be a base standard for access to

health care for the -- that applies to all of the folks that are involved in servicing our own airport. so with that i hope that we can forward this to a full board with a positive recommendation. thank you, colleagues, for your support. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor walton? >> supervisor walton: thank you so much, chair fewer. i was just ready to second moving this forward with the positive recommendation to the full board. >> chair fewer: okay. would you like to make the motion? >> supervisor walton: i will make the motion that we move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. >> chair fewer: madam clerk. >> clerk: yes, on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. can you read item number 2. >> clerk: yes, item 2, ordinance appropriating $126 million of

series 2020d public health and safety general obligation board proceeds to the department of public work and department of public works in fiscal year 2020-2021 for facility upgrades in zuckerberg san francisco general hospital, southeast and the other community health centers and neighborhood fire stations, $260 million of series 2020c affordable housing general obligation board proceeds in the mayor's office of housing and community development for public, low-income, preservation and middle-income and senior housing obligations, $102 million of series 2020f affordable housing preservation and seismic safety general obligation bond to mohcd for preservation and seismic safety projects and placing those funds on controller's reserve pending sale of the bonds. to make comment call 1-(415)-655-0001 and code 1466495693.

and wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk. so we have a lot of speakers on this list. there are 10 speakers. i am hoping that we are not going to hear from 10 speakers today on this item. so we have marissa praya, and we have benjamin bacloksi, and joe chen and diana alberto, and mark primeo and chris dunn. who is the main speaker for this item? >> marissa with the office of public finance. >> chair fewer: the floor is yours. >> thank you so much. let me pull up the presentation. our intent is that we will speak and other folks are available for questions if the chair and committee members have any. so, good morning. good morning, chair fewer, supervisor walton and supervisor

mandelman. marissa pratai, the office of public finance. thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. the item before the committee is an appropriation ordinance that will appropriate the proceeds of three general obligation bond issuances, the sale resolutions for these items were heard and approved by the budget and finance committee at a special meeting on tuesday, october 6th. and approved by the full board later that afternoon. the funds appropriated are pending the completion of the sale transactions. this ordinance appropriates the financial issuance of the 2016 public health and safety bond and are not to exceed amount of $126.9 million. these bonds were priced last thursday, october 22nd, and the transaction is expected to complete early next week.

this ordinance also appropriates first issuance from the 2019 affordable housing bond in an amount not to exceed $260 million. and these bonds are expected to price in the coming weeks. and, lastly, this ordinance appropriates the proceeds from the second issuance of the preservation and the seismic safety a.k.a. path, affordable housing bond programs and in an amount not to exceed $102.6 million and it is also anticipated to price in the next coming weeks. so with that, as you had mentioned, cha chair fewer, thes a big team viable if there's questions from you or any member on the committee. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, colleagues, any comments or questions for marissa. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: are we going to have a presentation

from city, or is this it? >> we didn't hav did have a pren back on the 6th but we have benjamin, and others available. >> supervisor mandelman: i would like to hear from g.o.c. about their thinking on geographic equity and the expenditure of these bond proceeds. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman, would you like to hear from the b.l.a. first or -- >> supervisor mandelman: we can do the b.l.a. first. >> chair fewer: okay. can we hear the b.l.a. report on this, please. >> yes, chair fewer, and members of the committee, the analyst office. i'll be very brief. we did lay out the general provisions of this ordinance. and we did report on the original bonds issuance when attending this committee in early october. page 7 of our report summarizes the use of these finds. it is consistent with the prior

approvals by the board of supervisors of the sale response and we recommend approval. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. supervisor mandelman now has a question. could we have a representative from mohcd, please. >> hi, jonah lee from the mayor's office, director of portfolio management and preservation. thank you, supervisor mandelman, for the question. geographic equity is one of our core priorities for really all of our programs. i would say that we are, you know, we're not happy with the outcome and we have been really been pushing for greater geographic equity across our programs and recognize it as a challenge that, you know, needs continued work and investment on. and on that front to support reaching some of those goals specifically, we are making such

investments in strengthening sponsor capacity. it's really our sponsors who we work with who need to extend and to scale their own operations to serve neighborhoods outside of their core neighborhoods. we're confident that the investments that we're making specifically to the small clients capacity grants which are key in identifying funding and pushing for -- pushing for those grants. we are, you know, actively working with those grantees now to strengthen their capacity to bring additional resources to support those acquisitions and, you know, across the city. and, you know, additional tools that will support that work are, of course, authorizing the

second issuance of the bonds without that low-cost capital. none of the acquisitions across the city will be feasible because otherwise the rates to those sponsors is going to be prohibitively high, particularly in this new environment where we're operating in an otherwise -- otherwise area of constrained resources, specifically on the more subsidy funding sources. that may not, you know, be the answer that you want to hear. i wish that i could say that we have, you know, have delivered more -- more projects, reaching those goals. but we certainly are aware of the issue and we're working towards addressing it. >> chair fewer: supervisor mandelman, if i may, i think that you bring up a very good question, and actually, i would

like to actually see a chart about where these affordable housing dollars are going in investments and in which neighborhoods. what we're looking for is geographic balance. i think -- so, actually, i think that you bring up a very good point and i just want to know -- are we on a timeline for this? because if we should continue this item until we get that chart and maybe some more information about a deeper understanding about maybe -- maybe it is the formula in which this is done that you actually need a non-profit sponsor to work with. the districts that don't have one i think that then are really at a disadvantage. and it's really not the fault of i think the district, but it's just the way that maybe that we are depending so heavily on the capacity and what are we doing to build the capacity. so i think that these are all questions that i have grappled

with as i know as a supervisor in my district. so i am wondering so, supervisor mandelman, i know that you have a question and i don't want to take over your time for comment. but i just thought that this is something that actually we might delve a little deeper into before we approve this item. >> supervisor mandelman: yes, or even just holding back the affordable housing piece of this. or whatever is simpler. but i do feel like it would be beneficial to have a little more analysis of where we are, because this conversation has been going -- i mean, supervisor fewer has been trying to have this conversation for a very long time. i have been trying to have this conversation for the two years that i have been here. i recognize -- there seems to be a general understanding and head nodding that, yes, this is not good to only concentrate affordable housing neighborhoods in a very few districts or a very few neighborhoods, but then we keep doing it. and there was specific language put into the bond but i don't

think that was meant to mean a feeling of, you know, that we will spend $10 million in district one and $10 million in district 4 and then we're done. but, rather, you know, to create a floor and try to have some of the thinking around making sure that the real gold rush that is happening in every neighborhood or has been happening in every neighborhood in san francisco doesn't result in, you know, a city where we have incredibly gentrified neighborhoods for the most part and a few neighborhoods where we managed to preserve affordable housing. so i thank you, chair fewer, for your suggestion and i think it would be good to continue the conversation at our next meeting. >> chair fewer: thank you, so i'll make a motion to continue this item. but before that can we open this up for public comment? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operations is checking to see if there's callers in the queue. let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not done so, press

star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. are there any callers that wish to comment on item number 2? >> madam chair, there are no callers in the kai. >> chair fewer: public comment on item 2 is now closed. i would say that we should probably continue this item to the budget and finance committee meeting two weeks from now. do you think, mr. lee, that would give you enough time to get the information gathered together? >> clerk: just to note that i believe that there's a better day. >> chair fewer: to continue it for three weeks. mr. lee, does that interfere with a timeline for you?

>> i'd like to actually to maybe -- maybe marissa or somebody from the controller's office can speak to the timeline because i'm not sure that i'm exactly clear on the implications of where we are in being able to issue the bond. if this item is continued. i want to just say that, you know, i totally hear the concerns that you have raised today and validate them, but, you know, if the end result of today is a continuance of the item and prevents us from being able to go out to the market and issue the bonds, you know, it holds up many, many different things across a lot of our housing programs. i'm not sure that that is the intent of the motion to continue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, mr. lee. marissa, is that interfering with your timelines? or could you accommodate us for another week?

>> sure, so one item that i would mention and the city attorney ann pearson could jump in if she likes. the item before you today is appropriating the proceeds and the sale resolutions have been passed and approved by the board of supervisors. so i don't think that it impacts our ability to sell the bond, it's once they're sold appropriating them into the department. i don't believe that is a timeline issue for either of the mayor's office of housing bonds. michelle, could you speak for the public health and safety bond, is that going to cause problematic impacts? >> yeah, this is michel teretty from the department of public finance. good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. there would be impacts for the department of -- the safety bonds and the department of public health and public works. we have priced bonds already and we expect to close the transaction on or around the 3rd of november.

so the longer this appropriation ordinance gets delayed, the proceeds will have to sit on reserve and the department won't have access for it for several weeks. but i don't believe that will create a significant delay to their projects based on my understanding of the projects. and we have someone from public works here and he can speak to the timing impacts more specifically. >> chair fewer: thank you. that's great to hear that it's not a severe impact. i would like to make a motion to continue this item. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i'm wondering if we can look forward to the non-housing bond -- the question for the city attorney, if we can -- what the -- let the housing bond guess forward. >> deputy city attorney ann pearson. so there's only one ordinance that combines all of the appropriations. so i don't think that you can pick and choose among it, you have to continue the entire

item. >> chair fewer: thank you. let's do that. let's do a motion to continue this item. i would say supervisor mandelman to next week's meeting or two weeks or three weeks after that. it seems that we're not going to have a meeting on the second week of november. so it would have to be the third week of november. and then i think that we are in recess because of a thanksgiving holiday. so why don't we continue this to next week because i think that mr. lee and the mayor's office of housing, i think that you actually do have that data. it's just putting it in a format that is easily understood i think by those of us who are somewhat novices on it. that's great. a motion to continue this item into the next meeting of the budget and finance committee. could i have a roll call vote. >> clerk: yes, on the motion [roll call] three ayes.

>> chair fewer: thank you very much, madam clerk, please call item number 3. >> clerk: item 3, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to submit a one-year application for calendar year 2021 to continue to receive funding for the integrated h.i.v. surveillance and prevention program for the health departments from the center of disease control and prevention, requesting $7 million in h.i.v. prevention funding from january 1, 2021, through december 31, 2021. the members of the public to provide public comment should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. is 1466495693. then press pound twice. if you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. the system prompts will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you pay begin your comments. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. today we have john an-mlechar from the department of public

health. >> good morning, supervisors and i hope that you find it okay during these turbulent times. and thank you on the call to pivoting to a virtual format. it's new for all of us. and i am a health program coordinator in the community health equity and promotion which is a branch of d.p.h. what we have before you is permission to reapply for a continuation of this c.d.c. cooperative agreement. we call it 18802, 2018 is when this grant first came out, but we've had a prevention grant like this for decades. over the years, the grants have changed and expanded so that it's not just h.i.v. prevention but it includes s.t.d., hepatitis c, and now working with people that are experiencing homelessness. so this 18802 grant has three

pieces to it. and one of it, the lion's share is $4.2 million for h.i.v. prevention services. another $800,000 for epi services. and then a piece of it which is called component b are opt-in which is a competitive piece that we applied for to reach to improve the outcomes on people experiencing homelessness. most of the -- much of the grant supports admin staff and planning and includes the services provided by the county by disease prevention and control, in particular the city clinic. also includes the support for our h.i.v. prevention planning councils, and our racial equity communities, and helps fund the staff that also write program announcements for programs that

are being funded with general funds. i am here to take whatever questions that you may have and if i can't answer them i will forward them on. >> chair fewer: colleagues, any comments or questions. supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: i would just like to be added as a co-sponsor. >> chair fewer: great. i have one question is that does any of this grant money intercept with what we're doing with our maternal health? and are any of these funds actually around the prevention of h.i.v. and s.t.d.s and everything else, working with what you're doing at public health around black maternal health? >> yes. so i can cite a couple of examples for that. we do have -- there's a monthly meeting that is addressing syphilis and congenital sieve

fis especially in san francisco that is hosted by the s.t.d. branch of the city clinic. and also we have just released an r.f.p. earlier -- actually late last year -- that was supposed to start the beginning of this year but it was put on hold due to, you know, covid. and that grant was actually indicated a shift on our perspective. much of our money was based on where the data was and the data that we were looking at was behavioral data. so a lot of talk about men having sex with men and, etc. and the focus is now on communities from which people live. so there was part of the r.f.p. was focused on the black community and also spectacular money for women. so it's a little bit different. so we're trying to look at the racial equity lens and the population focus as well. >> chair fewer: what is the data

telling us about black women and these diseases? >> i really couldn't say. i haven't really looked at things since the last epi report came out which is for the 2019 data. and i haven't had a chance to look at it. it's interesting to see what has happened during the time of covid, whether we have been able to provide the same level of services that we have. i know that our covid focus though is -- is addressing those populations. there are similar populations that are disproportionately affected populations. but i'm sorry, i don't have numbers but i can certainly get that for you. >> chair fewer: okay, i'm just wondering what the data tells us about black women and whether or not -- and what sort of integrations that we are doing and specifically to them. so, anyway, we can follow up on that conversation. i think that this is to apply

for a grant, is that correct? >> yes, correct. >> chair fewer: yeah, we will open this up for public comment please, madam clerk. >> clerk: madam chair, i wanted to note that the proposed amendment from greg wong from the department of public health -- to correctly state that the current application is on file which the clerk can provide you. >> chair fewer: mr. wong, do you want to speak at all, dr. wong, apologies, do you want to speak to the amendments that you're proposing today? you're on mute, doctor. >> thank you. i just wanted to say that we are submitting an amendment to the previously submitted resolution on page 2, line 23 to replace the wording, to the current use application. >> chair fewer: okay, thank you very much. city attorney, i'm assuming that is not substantive?

>> you're correct, cha chair fe, that is not substantive. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. madam clerk, public comment, please. >> clerk: yes, madam chair. operation is checking to see if there's any callers in the queue. operations, let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. and let us know if there are any callers to comment on item number 3. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: public comment on item number 3 is closed and i make a motion to accept the amendments. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes. on the motion [roll call] three ayes. >> chair fewer: i make a motion to move this to the board as amended with a positive recommendation. roll call vote, please. >> clerk: yes, on the motion [roll call]

three ayes. >> chair fewer: this amendment passes. item number 4. >> clerk: item number 4, a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of public health to submit an application to continue to receive funding for the ryan white act h.i.v./aids emergency relief grant program grant from the health resources services administration and requesting $15.7 million in h.i.v. emergency relief program funding for the san francisco eligible metropolitan area for the period of march 1, 2021 you through february 28, 2022. the members of the public who wish to provide public comment on this item should call 1-(415)-655-0001. meeting i.d. is 1466495693. then press pound twice. if you have not done so, dial star, 3, to line up to speak. a system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted and you may

comment. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. today our speakers, we have bill bloom and dean guitwin from the department of public health. but supervisor, you are a sponsor, would you like to say anything before we start the presentations? >> only to thank the folks at d.p.h. and the city planning council for all of their fine work. >> chair fewer: okay. thank you people at d.p.h. melissa bloom, the floor is yours. >> thank you so much, supervisors, fewer mandelman and walton. good morning, great to see the work and to have a chance to present to you again about more program funding. dean and i have set aside slides to give you an overview of the ryan white act, and to see more of how the funds get allocated and spent. thank you. if you could advance to the next slide, please.

so ryan white funding on the bottom left is geared to uninsured and underinsured individuals, and it's designed to give h.i.v. services. we in san francisco are the grantee for actually for three counties, and including moritz and san mateo. ryan white program consists of five partings which you can see on your right. we're speaking specifically about ryan white part a, that was the request for your approval with this board. that is given out to mostly cities and counties and a couple of jurisdictions. it may be interest to know that san francisco county going through d.p.h. receives part a and part b as well as part d,

and (indiscernible) reads part f. you can read the amendment, and so all of these parts come into or county. next slide, please. did you want to speak to the next slide? >> yes. i thought that it was your slide. sorry. so there are about 15,900 san francisco residents diagnosed and living with h.i.v. as of the end of december 2019. we provide support services to approximately 7,000 san francisco residents who are eligible for these services based on the income criteria. h.h.f. comes to the board each year for the process for ryan white granting and we reapply

annually but we have learned recently that as of next year in 2021, that we will be applying for a three-year grant and we won't receive a three-year award after that so we'll come in every three years moving forward. and the budget is nearly $38 million annually. ryan white is about 31% of the funt are funding for the client services here in san francisco. just in the last year we have raised our financial eligibility from 400% to 500% of f.p.l. as the state was doing that for the part d funds so we wanted to create equity on that for the year 2020. and 500% of the poverty level is about $63,800. next slide, please. as bill said, the funding is a three county e.m.a. or eligible in the metropolitan area, which

is san francisco and san may sao and morin. they have the clients within the three county area. in the past it was as high as 89%, the numbers in san francisco have been decreasing proportionally as they are increasing in san mateo which is 11% and morin about 4%. and the services have seen a steady reduction in our federal ryan white h.i.v. funding since 2001 which was it was about $35.5 million to 2020, a little under $15 million. with the grant funding reductions in prior years was reinstated with general funds since about 2012. this current year in 2020, the e.m.a. grant was reduced by $368,000, and it was a shift with the client numbers between san francisco and san may theyo that was a hit of $466,000 to

san francisco county services, which we were able to accommodate by moving some of the existing part a funding that were a good fit for ending the h.i.v. pandemic that we brought to you a few weeks ago. next slide, please. and we support a funding and we work closely with the h.i.v. community planning council, which for h.i.v. health services was established in 1992. and there was a separate h.i.v. prevention planning council, the two of those merged together in 2016. currently there are 50 seats on the council with five co-chairs and three from the community and two government co-chairs, and where the funding is coming for

the h.i.v. prevention services. and the mission of the planning council is made up with representatives from all three counties, those are recruited and interviewed within the council mechanism and appointed by the mayor. we have goals -- a goal of one-third of the members being non-affiliated consumers. and then we have a goal of the membership meeting the diversity of the demographics of epidemiology of h.i.v. in our area as well. and just a little bit on the right side here on what the structure is. there's a full council that meets monthly, of course they're doing that virtually now, as well as for the committees that also meet monthly, with the bulk of the work done within the committee structure. the council receives a lot of information and there's a lot of

guidance and work diligently done on both sides. their overall goal in regards to the prioritization and the allocation of the funding is on a macro level. they don't get information per contract or per agency, that's just with the purview of h.i.v. services as a grantee that we do really respect and treasure the relationship that we have with our community planning body. with that that's the last slide and we're open for questions. thank you for your time today. >> chair fewer: thank you very much, any comments or questions from colleagues? supervisor mandelman? >> supervisor mandelman: yeah, thanks, dean and bill, for the presentation. i'm trying to understand as to attachment three, the fiscal year 2020 part a application? sorry to spring this on you

without advanced warning, i try to not do this. but i am trying to understand a couple things about this chart. so one thing is i thought that the 2018 was the year that we got under 200. but this report is 322. so i don't know if that was -- i thought that last year we made a big deal -- we got under 200. so i don't know if anybody knows what that is about? i'll let you think about that. and the other question that i have is i'm just looking at the ethnic breakdown of who is getting -- well, ethnic and transmission categories of who is getting h.i.v. or appears to be h.i.v. based on this chart. we have talked a lot about increasingly affecting low-income folks and unhoused folks and people of color, but, like, really it looks -- i mean, it's disproportionately

impacting african americans, but it is really in 2018 hitting latinos. am i reading this chart right? is that the deal? >> i'm not sure that the chart -- >> overwhelmingly latino men who have sex with men it looks like. >> supervisor mandelman, are you referencing a different presentation in slides than what we're share something. >> supervisor mandelman: i'm looking in my agenda packet. sorry. >> we could offer some opinions about it, and respond if you like, but it may be more appropriate for john melacar to answer, whatever you prefer. >> supervisor mandelman: well, if you have any thoughts on that and maybe i could get briefing on this because it's interesting, particularly wondering what are we doing to reach -- what is going on with the latin x community, and i'm guessing, you know, that the latina men who have sex with

men, and are we just like throwing a ton of resources at, you know, like reaching people who might not going (indiscernible) or something like that. you don't have to answer that now but i'm intrigued by this chart. >> chair fewer: yes, supervisor mandelman, i think that is very interesting. actually i think that it is actually our responsibility with our power of inquiry to really question that and to ask that. we should continue this item to next week and bring that more information and have a deeper conversation about this. this is something that comes to us annually that we approve. so i'm actually interested in what are the interventions that we're doing and are we doing it in a very racially equitable way. and what is it that we found that works and what doesn't work? so are you gentlemen are on a timeline for is thi? because i think that is an

interesting thing. bill you're looking at me like what. >> (indiscernible). >> chair fewer: go to next week and we can have like a deeper conversation about it? >> totally open. the question is, again, we can actually talk it from the h.i.v. (indiscernible) to also want to invite folks from the prevention side which is what rafael is looking at, the newly tested positive. so we're happy to talk about it from -- we work with folks once they test positive. >> chair fewer: sure. you know, supervisor mandelman, i know that we could call a hearing on this, but this seems like a mini-hearing, quite frankly. and i think that it was related to budget, right? and it is super interesting also what i have been asking also about black maternal health. >> supervisor mandelman: although i would say in at least 2018, there were zero -- i think

-- mother with or at risk of h.i.v. was zero. but that was 2018. but i think that -- unless this screws up something about, you know,. >> no, we're good. >> supervisor mandelman: to come back and have a conversation. >> chair fewer: dean and bill, another thing that is interesting to see how we're doing in comparison to other counties. my question was is that i think that we managed for your h.i.v. community planning council area, right? so san mateo and morin and we manage the grant for those counties. but i wanted to know like in the east bay is there a counterpart that is doing this work? i think that when we see different sections and people living with -- contracting and living with these infections we're seeing it fluid throughout the bay area and it's sor sort f regional. so it would be interesting for

you and in your presentation to actually to show us by county, is this a regional thing that we should be working together with the regional partners? are they seeing the same trend? our population is also having great changes in demographics. so i'm wondering as we have shifted our de dem our demograpt is the outlook about who are the new infections, what are we doing, what are they doing, are we sharing ideas, what is working. so let's plan for that for the next meeting. i think that actually it would be -- supervisor mandelman, would you mind to work with the gentlemen about the presentation for next week. >> supervisor mandelman: my only question if we're doing what we're doing on h.i.v. and how, you know, how we're moving towards the end and how we're getting to zero kind of conversations, i'm wondering if a week is enough.

i also thinking, i would like to have that conversation but i don't think that our approval of this is depend only that. do we have to keep this here to have that discussion? >> chair fewer: are we able to schedule a hearing here at budget, a mini-hearing here at budget, after having cast this item out of committee, are we able to hold a hearing on these very questions about the subject matter or does it need to be actually attached to an agenda item that we approve? >> so i think in the context of reviewing this item, this grant application, it's totally appropriate to ask questions about some of the information that was part of the grant application, including the demographic information that was there. i think that if the committee chooses to approve this item and would still like to learn more about this, it would be appropriate for someone to introduce a hearing request which the president then would assign to the appropriate

committee. >> chair fewer: okay. so supervisor mandelman, considering that it is a very much more involved -- like, we have to wait for so many days, blah, blah, blah, gentlemen i'm wondering, i think that this is super interesting and you could showcase what you're doing and it's great for general public too. could you and back in a couple weeks -- >> the other thing is that i think that you guys are scheduled within a month to hear about the c.d.c. funding which will make the conversation also more robust so we'll try to figure out how to -- >> chair fewer: okay. >> so we're happy to come back in two weeks. >> chair fewer: okay. madam clerk, when is our next meeting for the budget and finance committee? >> clerk: yes, madam chair. the meeting after next would be on november 18th. >> chair fewer: is november 18th too late?

bill? >> yes. >> chair fewer: okay, good. this is really exciting. okay, let's open this up for public comment. >> sorry, buddy. >> no worries. >> chair fewer: madam clerk, please. >> clerk: madam chair, operations is checking to see if there are callers in the queue. operations, let us know if there are callers that are ready. if you have not already done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. for those already on hold wait until the system creates that you have been unmuted. let us know if there are callers who wish to comment on that item number 4. >> madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. >> chair fewer: thank you very much. public comment on item number 4 is closed, i would like to move this to the meeting of november 18th. a roll call vote, please. >> clerk: on the motion [roll call] three ayes.

>> chair fewer: thank you very much. >> clerk: nothing further.e bef? >> chair fewer: thank you. >> thank you. >> goodbye. >> thank you. much. so if we can go ahead to the next slide. this meeting will include a quick welcome by board of education president, mark sanchez, followed by a 20-minute

presentation on the proposed changes to student assignments. we'll have 15 minutes for questions and answers about the proposed policy and 15 minutes to share your hopes, ideas, and concerns about these changes. lastly we'll have five minutes to close this evening's meeting and share information about next steps. i'll going to play a video by mark san december. i wants to take a minute to explain why we're making changes to the student assignment system

and why this work is so important. as you likely already know, sfusd is in the process of changing our student assignment policy for our elementary schools. december 2018, we started this process by unanimously passing a board resolution and direct to develop a recommendation for a new elementary school student assignment system. now we're nearing the end of a robust, multi-year process and the board of education plans to vote on a new policy on decembe. for the past nine years, sfusd has used student assignment process where families may apply to any elementary school in the district. despite our well intentioned efforts, the process has not worked as well as intended meeting goals related to diversity, predictability and proximity. in our current system. families must chose from 72 different schools and aren't guaranteed an assignment to any of them. the families with the most time and resources are best able to figure out the application process, research schools, go on

school tours, and ultimately receive one of the top choices. despite the complicated process, our schools are just as segregated today as they were when we implemented the system. what we've heard we know that every family wants to send their child to a high-quality school and that students assignment alone cannot create high-quality stools but it does have a role to play in creating diverse robust enrolled schools. and sfusd our mission is to provide each and every student with the high-quality instruction required to thrive in the 21st century. each and every day we're focused on creating high-quality goals in every neighborhood regardless of how out student assignment system works, timeline for change. the board plans to vote on a new policy in december of this year but when the policy is approved, it won't go into effect for a couple of years. during this time, there will be plenty of opportunities for community input as we design zones and plan for a successful roll out of the new system. what we hope to accomplish

tonight, tonight's session is an opportunity for us all to learn. we hope the community members will learn all about the policy recommendations and that sfusd staff will learn about questions, hopes and concerns. we invite you to participate via thought exchange tonight and to ask questions about the policy, understand its key features, and provide input on how we will implement the policy in the coming years. district staff eager to hear from you and your questions, homeshopes and ideas will be heo we can make this policy work for each and every family in san francisco. thank you again for being here. >> wonderful. so as president sanchez said, it's an opportunity to learn together and if we can click through to the next slide, please. our hope is that community members will learn about the proposed changes to student

assignments and to decide on the changes for the board's vote and we hope that sfusd staff will learn about the community's hopes, ideas and concerns about these potential changes. wore now going to watch another short video which explains how our current student assignment works and it will make sure everyone is starting with the same information about how the current system works before we give feedback on a new student assignment system and if we can please play the video. thank you. >> hello, we created this video to help explain how our student assignment system works. to start y. do we have the student assignment system. they have over 100 schools and each year students apply we rely on the student assignment system

to make sure every student receives a school. the system is a set of rules which considers family choices and the number of open school seats. tone sure that all students are equitably assigned to schools. this is a especially important when more students apply to a school than there are openings. tie breakers are preferences given to applicants. these character is ticks were chosen by sfusd to do awe fie things, provide equitable access and help create diverse learning and give families opportunities to stay closer to home. here are all the tie breakers ranked in order. one, siblings, two, pre kt-k attendance area, three, test score area, ctip one. four, attendance area. if your requests have tie breakers, for example, you are a younger sibling, live in an area of the city with the lowest average test scores or live in

the attendance area of the school, you have a greater chance of getting into your requested schools. what happens if you don't get any of the schools you requested? unfortunately, that can happen sometimes. because, the schools you want are so popular that many students request them. when this happens, the computer looks at where you live and tries to assign you to your attendance area schools if it has openings. if your attendance area school is full, the computer looks for the closest schools to where you live that has openings. and assigns you to that school. while we cannot promise that every student will be placed at their number one choice schools, we can promise that your students will be considered fairly and that the student assignment system strives to assign students nor more help, contact us by phone or e-mail or visit sfusd at edu slash enrolled.

>> great, thank you. so, we just watched a video that told us how our current student assignment system works and the current system isn't perfect and we clicked through to the next slide. you can see that in 2018 the board of education and passed a resolution to change our current student assignment and had hasn't been working as we intended. here are some of the problems with the current systems that we're trying to solve. and the first problem, is that schools are segregated by income and by race and ethnicity. the current system is also complicated for families and it isn't always predictable or transparent enough. we also know that choices seen as increasing inequities because the families who have the most time and resources are best able to navigate the choice process. lastly, traveling across the

city makes it difficult to build strong community connections. we've already gathered a lot of feedback from community members. last spring, we hosted 12 community workshops and neighborhoods throughout the city. tabled in front of pre schools and community centers and attended meetings for feedback. in total we talked with about 600 people but we connist enterally heard is that the most important thing is to have access to high-quality schools and student assignments are only an issue because not all schools are perceived as being the same in quality. we heard from a lot of families that choice can be inequitable because not all families have the same time or resources to engage in the choice process and

many african american and latinx families wonder why the district was redesigning student assignments and we're distrustful of the motivations for doing so. a neighborhood based system would harm families with the least resources and most family would prefer to send their children close to home. however, families wanted to be confident in the quality of their neighborhood schools before they would send their child there. we covered a lot and went through slides and watched videos. let's pause and take a quick 30

second break. if you would like, this is a time to write down thoughts or questions that you have and get up and do a stretch and talk about what's in the policy, what are we recommending. >> i hope they had a chance of thoughts and questions that they had. we're going to talk about what is in the policy. if we can click through to the next slide, please.

thank you. we've learned a lot about how the current student assignment system works and what some of the problems that the current system are and what feedback we've already gotten from the community. now wore going to jump in and learn about the proposed changes to student assignments. the new policy would move away from our current district wide choice process for elementary schools. instead, sfusd would develop zones and allow families to chose from elementary schools in the zone that they live in. families would still have choices of case and however, instead of choosing from all 72 elementary schools and sfusd each family would be presented with a more manageable list of choices and families would end up being assigned to one of the schools in their zone.

the policy is to help assign students so that schools reflect the rich diversity of our city. to do that they will use diversity category to assign students so each school resembles the diversity of the zone it's in. one of the biggest changes from the current system is that sfusd would create zones and so this means instead of choosing from all 72 elementary schools in the city, each family would chose from a smaller number of schools based on the zone they live in and creating zones will help make the assignment process much more predictable for schools and families and will create stronger community connections. each family will have access to all of the different types of

programs that they're eligible for and the only difference is that families will chose from a smaller list of schools so that the choice process is simpler,'s year and more predict able. no matter where a student lives, they'll still have access to all the different types of language pathways that they're eligible for. this might include duel language emersion or flex programs which are open to all students. or by literacy programs open to english learners, bilingual students who speak the target language. just like general education programs, families will receive a smaller, more manageable list of choices for language programs that they might be interested in. and this will be based on the zone they live in. this might mean that sfusd has to drive different types of zones for different types of programs so that every child

still has access to all the different programs that they're he will individual able and so so every student has access to language pathways and have access to a k-8 school and based on the zone that they live in and every student will have access to appropriate special education programs. to apply families just need to rank their schools in their own to the order they prefer them so i hope this will make the choice process simple and easy for families. if we go to the next slide. after families are in the schools in their zone and submit their choices to sfusd, every student will end up being assigned to one of the schools in their own so this system is

much more predictable. families noah head of time that they're going to be assigned to one of the schools on their listed. there already schools to chose from. so now that we talked about which choices are available to each student, you might be wondering how will students be assigned to one of the schools that they chose. this will use two important features to help assigned students to schools. one student submit their requests, the assignment system will troy to match everyone with one of their top choices. and as long as there's available space, the student will be assigned. if there are more requests for schools then there are open spaces, this system will use tie breakers to give preference to some applicants.

the assignment system will look at where students live and try to assign students from different parts of the zone so that each school resembled and diversity of the zone it's in. i'll explain these in turn. so tie breakers are the next important feature that i'm going to talk about. tie breakers are preferences used to assign students to schools when the number of requests for that school is greater than the number of spaces available. and the newest student assignment system would use the following three tie breakers. the first one is a sibling tie-breaker. so this would be a preference for younger siblings of students who are currently enrolled in and will be continuing on. will be attending that same school they're applying to. [please stand by]

>> these might include household income, race and ethnicity or academic achievement. diversity category use multiple criteria to count for the many ways diversity enhances the educational experience for students. let's pretend that the graphics down at the bottom of the screen, each represent three hypothetical blocks that are each assigned to a diversity category. in this example the three blocks are assigned to the orange circle, purple stripe or blue triangle diversity city category. in the every student in each block will be in orange circle, purple stripe or blue training. every student will be assigned to same category every other student on the block. all the demographic information will be generalized for that block. which means it would all be

aggregated. we wasn't to call out that individual student characteristics will not be used to assign students to schools. everyone who live on the same block will be part of the same diversity category base on aggregated demographic data. that's the first step. the second step, the next slide, each school will have a certain number of spaces for students from each diversity category in its zone so the school looks like the zone that its in. for example, if a zone has 30% orange circles, 30% purple stripes and 40% blue triangle,

school a will assign 30% seats to orange circles 30% for purple stripes and 20% for the triangle. our hope is that this new policy will achieve these three goals. all of the things that i just described are trying to achieve these three goals. the first goal is diversity. we want to create integrated elementary schools that provides students with the opportunity to experience rich diversity in san francisco. our next goal is predictability. we want to offer families high degree of predictability. third goal is proximity. we want this new policy to create strong community connections to schools and happy

felt enrollment. we don't students to have to travel too far. this is our policy development timeline. we've been working on the system for quite a while now. even since 2018. we're in the orange box of the dotted box that's part of the decide stage. these are the community information sessions. next, the board of education will discuss the policy on december 1st at the the committee of the whole meeting. will vote on the policy on december 8th. if the policy is approved in december, it will take at least a year and a half to implement. this includes actually drawing zones, updating district transportation routes, creating new application and enrollment process that is simple and easy for families. we expect that the earliest this

policy will go into effect for students applying for elementary school in the 2023-2024 school year. you can look at the timeline. if we go to the next slide, we're going to take another quick 30 second break, again this is a chance to write down any thoughts or questions that you have so far, get up and stretch and when we come back, we'll finish up with couple of more slides and get to the interactive portion to tonight's community information meeting.

we'll move on to the last portion of the presentation. let's click through to the next slide. what comes next? the board of education decides to produce thee changes, what happens then? if the policy is approved in december, there will be lot of decisions left to make during implementation, which means lots of opportunities for community to give input. on the left hand side of the screen are things that are actually in the policy, the

things that the board will be votings on in december. on the right are things that come after the policy has been approved. some of the things, what's in the policy, this includes a series of actions, goals, guidelines for drawing the zones, the actual rules for assigning students to schools, including the tie breakers and the diversity category and on the process for monitoring policy, monitoring the impact that its having. what happens during implementation. this is actually drawing the zone. developing the software and the assignment algorithm, updating transportation routes, developing and easy application process for families, preparing school for enrollment growth. if there are schools that have more students assigned to them, giving them the resources they need to be able to grow. revisiting middle school feeder

pattern. making sure they are aligned with middle school feeders. many changes will be phased in overtime. if you go to the next slide, one of the most important things that will happen during the implementation is drawing the zones. they know lot of people probably have questions about what the zones will look like ahow they will be created. the board are not voting on the actual zones december. instead, they are voting on a policy that includes guidelines for drawing the zones. here are the guidelines that will be use to create the zones. first, is that diversity is important to us. we want each zone to reflect the diversity of the city across many characteristics, socioeconomics, english

proficiency. zones should limit the number of schools so that the process is simple and easy and predictable for families. zones should cover reasonable geographic distance. we know diversity is important we have to cover a reasonable geographic distance. zones shouldn't travel all across the city. we want to send students closer to schools closer to home. we also know that san francisco's demographics are rapidly changing. we can't just draw the zones one time and leave them unchanged. the recommendation calls for entire policy including the

zones to be monitored and evaluated every year. if we find that the city's demographics have changed, the zones are no longer meeting their goals, then they'll be revised so they meet the criteria and meet the guidelines. with that, i'm going to turn it over to my colleague who will walk us through the next force n of this evening. will have a chance to share questions, ideas and hopes and concerns. >> hi, thank you henry. i appreciate you handing it over. i want to say that i'm very excited for this. tonight we're going to be using a platform bot exchange to gather input. step one, is the shared step

where you will share your thoughts independently and anonymously. step two is the star step where you go there through and rate the thoughts of others. step three is the discover step where we'll see what's most important to the group. in a moment, you will all be able to participate. i will put the qr code up on screen. i'll have a link and code that you can use to participate in case you don't have that availability. you don't need to download an app. you don't need to sign up for anything to participate. once you're in the exchange, make sure you choose your language if you like to participate in from the dropdown, share one to two thoughts, rate at least 15 other thoughts and based on what you agree with and what you disagree with. five strongly you agree, one being that you strongly disagree. we encourage you to use full

range of stars that reflect what your priorities are. remember, this is confidential, so your identity will not be known or associated with any of the thoughts that you share. i'm going to switch it over. >> i will share one more thing, this event is being recorded for we leave thought exchange open. if you submit your questions and hopes, ideas and concerns, they will be read and they will be considered after the event. >> right now, at home, you can use this to -- you can scan the qr code to joining the exchange in the question we're asking, what questions do you have have

proposed changes. if you don't scan the qr code, you can go to that website, pejoin.com and enter this nine digit code that will tack you to thought exchange to answer that question. remember this is totally anonymous. you'll be able to share your thoughts independently. while everybody does that, i will play some music. ♪

♪ >> we're at about 2 minutes 13 seconds. that's about half way. i'm loving the participants.

we have about 100 people participating right now. 35 thoughts shared and 117 rating. that's great. just reminder, once you share one to two thoughts, rate about 15 other people thoughts on that scale of five you strongly agree and one you strongly disagree anywhere in that full range depending on your priorities. this confidential. we won't be able to associate your identity with any of your thoughts and feel free to share. you got about 1 minute 30 seconds left before we move on to the next part. ♪

>> okay. awesome. that was about four minute of time. we're going to move on to the next step. which is the discover phase. as you can see, right to the left we have a visualization of all of the participants, 112 participants inside of the thought exchange now. if you like to continue to participate, we are going to leave the thought exchange open and you can go to tejoin.com and

use that nine digit code to go through and continue to participate in this thought exchange. now, we will have henry and carla reflect some of these thoughts. the first thought that we have here that we have, lot of people will parents be able to ask for reassignment within the zone if unhappy with the school? >> that's a great question. i'm going to invite my colleague, orlo to jump in if she like for this one. that's a great question. the policy does not include the number rounds that are -- from different assignment rounds. i think that's something to be decided after the policy is approved. do you want to elaborate?

>> i'm happy to. our goal is to create a predictable, simple student assignment system. the more changes there are in the process and the more complicated it is, less simple it is. we're hopeful, we haven't come to the level of detail. the feedback that we receive so far makes it more stressful for families and our goal is to make it as simple as possible. >> thank you. this question has risen up to the top. based off socioeconomic, racial, english proficiency disability, is that also reported?

>> that's the sub text there was that, there were questions about the validity of the data, when try to game the system and misreport. yes, at a certain -- sometimes everything is self-reported whether we use student level data or census data. we have to rely on people to report either their race, ethnicity, things like that. all of the data will be aggregated. no student will have no incentive to misreport their own individual data. it will be census data or sfusd administrative data. >> to add on to that, it will not be part of the application process. we will not be asking for any data like that at all. we want to know where you live

and what your choices are in rank order. the census data is supported. any data that exist, self-reported data. we will be pulling on that data and will not be asking for individual student data. we'll be working on data that's readily available in the city to a variety of sources including the census data and sources like that. >> thank you. this question is risen to the top. how will this affect the middle school enrollment. >> we're anticipating that when we draw the zones and we will need to revisit the elementary to middle school feeders. we anticipate fully that infrastructure will continue and that anyone who's currently enrolled in elementary, if there

need to be changes to the middle school, students will not be impacted. they will be grandfathered in their middle school feeder. >> thank you. i saw another question. neighborhoods already are segregated, how are you going to ensure that this is going to work? >> that's a great question. there are two parts to my answer. the first is that the zones can't just replicate an existing neighborhood pattern. we worked really extensively over the summer with the team of researchers at stanford to simulate some hypothetical zones. what we found if the zones are too small and just reflect existing neighborhoods then they don't help to create more

diversity. zones have to connect couple of different neighborhoods in order for them to be diverse. second piece, we need diversity categories that i talked about. if we just draw diverse zone and we let everyone choose and match everyone with their highest rank choice without considering diversity categories. we find that choice pattern pate segregated and schools become segregated through the process. >> thank you. it is 7:20. would you like to move on to the next thought exchange? >> there's one or two other things in here that might be worth responding to. i saw a few questions about siblings. student who doesn't attend zone school in that zone. the answer is yes. that's one of the tiebreakers

we'll continue to support preference for younger children to be enrolled in and attending the same school as their older siblings. >> siblings will be very limited number of students who maybe allowed. others being foster youth, student experiencing homelessness. >> then there's a question about what if children want to send -- what if parents want to send their children outside the zone. this is one of the major differences in this new system. we're moving from being able to choose any school in the district to limited number of schools. under this proposal, families will be able to choose from the schools that are listen their zone. they will be the only schools they'll be able to choose.

with the exception of the sibling if you got an older sibling at another school. >> excellent. i wanted to share reminder that this thought exchange will be open, we will be looking at all of the responses not just the ones that we responded to after this townhall, we can get a full breadth of the information shared with us today. this meeting will be recorded and posted to the sfusd website and along with the link to the thought exchange. which will remain open for the next few weeks. right now i will switch over to the next thought exchange.

in this thought exchange here, we are asking what are your hopes, ideas and concerns about this policy that will work for you and your community? i want to share that this is a new thought exchange. you'll have to go through and either scan the qr code again or scan the new qr or go to tejoin.com and use that new nine didn't code to participate. this question has a couple of survey questions at the beginning of it. please take your time. we'll give you additional time to participate. just reminder that the thought exchange has three steps. we're sharing our thoughts

independently, anonymously, star step and step we'll be able to see what's important to the group and respond to that. once you get into the exchange, please select the language you like to participate in. share one to two thoughts and rate about 15 other people thoughts based on how much you agree, whether you strongly agree, five or one for stronging disagree and once again, encourage you to use the full range of stars while participating. while people are logging in to participate, i will go back to playing some music. >> while people are logging in, i want to appreciate all the great questions that surfaced.

acknowledged that we did it have time to answer them all tonight. we fully intend to turn this into an faq which we will send out. we will make every effort to respond to all the questions that were surfaced.

>> we're at 1 minute 32 seconds. please feel free to share those final thoughts and rating. we'll discuss a few and go over them. please continue to share your thoughts. we appreciate this and answer those survey questions so we know how to further engage you on these subjects.

>> i want to bring us back.

we have about 81 people participating and 79 thoughts shared and almost 1000 rating. let's dive into some of these hopes, ideas, concerns about what this policy will bring for you and your community. the thought that's been ranked the highest is i hope that all citywide language programs will remain citywide access and equity for all students to learn a world language. henry or ola if you like to comment on these as they come up. >> sure, i see a theme with

couple of of them. first and third, which is around access and equity. looks like families concerned schools in the zone will not offer same access to programs, whether it's after school, language, etcetera. there's another commenter noted that they are worried that the best schools will remain in wealthier neighborhoods and other families won't have access to healthier schools. we hear that, we know that how we draw the zones will be incredibly important. this has to be open and transparent process that involves community members. should we scroll through and read out a few more? >> absolutely. you covered those two big topics of equity and transparency.

let's see what else has been bubbling up. henry, i heard you speak about this before, about providing high quality education to all students across the city. can you speak to how this might tie into that? >> i can address it. i think that quality schools are far more important. it's regardless of student assigned to a system. this is a massive concern for us. while student assignment won't create quality schools and we do believe that it has a role to play in helping create diverse and robust enrollment. which we think is, really important to our goals and our

vision at the district. regardless of which student system we use, this question is something that must be addressed on a daily basis. i don't know henry, if you want to add anything to that. >> i think that's perfect. i couldn't agree more. >> i see lot of the thoughts and concerns are about quality. we definitely heard that and definitely understand that quality schools are the most important thing. to be respectful of everyone's time. we're couple of minutes over.

maybe we can transition back to the slides and wrap up this evening's meeting. i want to remind everyone that the thought exchange is going to be left open. you can participate after the fact, maybe if it was difficult to get it up and working right now. we're going to leave it open and we're going to revisiting this and reviewing and incorporating any feedback that we hear. with that, i want to thank everyone so much for coming tonight. folks can stay up to date if folks are interested in following this process. you can visit sfusd.edu/studentassignment. we're posting all our resources related to the development of this new policy on that web page. with that, i want to thank yo