public who wish to comment on how the ordinance regarding the municipal elections code should call 4156550001 meeting idea of 25910926245 press pound twice. and if you haven't already done so pleased i'll start three lined up to speak promptly indicate that you have raised your hand and please wait until the system indicates you having that muted and you may begin your comments regarding the ordinance regarding the municipal elections cut. um madam chair. thank you, mr clark. and with that, please continue. the presentation, including the item eight. which is interesting. thank you. church in so the ordinance that we're putting forward as chilling legislation would actually allow san francisco to opt out of the state requirement to place the names of the proponents and opponents. the official proponents, opponents with the ballot questions on on the local for the local measures. and the reason we're asking for this opt out is from our calculations, even going from using past elections as

examples. they're going forward. we would add at least one ballot card per election. if we were to add these proponents and opponents name to local ballot measures. just the cards themselves. add that to the department's cost is $500,000 so that that doesn't include any kind of processing handling transportation cost. and then with the november 2024 election as i mentioned our our budgets based on a six card ballot because we moved the five local offices from november 2023 to november 2024. and if we were to go to the seventh card for november 2024 that's actually a substantial require substantial changes on our part or our ballot printers, part and the post office part to get those ballots through the process, and also, it would would delay the results reporting at the end of the day based on the changes to the department's process. this is why we're recommending the board that they approved the training legislation in relation to a b 16 14. and then to move

on with the presentation to the questions from chair chan's office. the next slide would be our language access. so department provides language access in chinese, filipino and spanish for all of our election materials includes the ballast water, water information pamphlets. although notices are bilingual poll workers at the polling places the folks in the department when we pick up the people we hire to answer the phones through the election cycle. so we really the basis of all that we do is built on providing language access, and we also provide information such as large print voter guides, large print ballots, audio ballots and audio of voter guides for additional language access. and then we also work with language line language line service, which is as a city city contract. provide support in other languages. besides the chinese, spanish and built in filipino, which also includes american sign language. while we don't necessarily work to

alleviate alleviate poverty directly as part of our equity review. we did, uh, increase our services to people who are housing insecure who experienced incarceration. uh, and those who are in the vulnerable communities. so we are trying to provide services and bring everyone into the elections process. make sure they know how to get information they can receive ballots, the matter of their housing status, and then they know where to get information. how to get those ballots back to us and also how to check if their ballots were counted. they that they know that they were part of the process if they were if they engaged in it. then are the next slide is our chart. ah we have 39.5 full time positions in the department has been a study number through time. and we did have a number of exempt hires this past few years we have been working through the process is to bring people from the exempt status to permanent status.

we've we've completed five of these trans transitions and were ongoing working to make nine more positions moved from exempt to the permanent status the next one supervisor ronan has a question. okay, okay. and then as far as our staffing, one thing about elections staffing budget, even though we have 39.5 full time fte s when we hire up to 202 150, temporary needed personnel for an election cycles all their hours get added together and divided by 2080 hours, and that creates more fts on top of what are our permanent ft counties. that's why on this next slide, you see that for 24 25. we have a proposed ftt kind of uh, 59 when our but our actual full time ft count is 39.5. that's that's the reason for the changes in those numbers. and then the next line. and the next slide, and this is a visual of the changes in the

ballot. if we were to opt if we were not to opt out of a b 14 16 , the first slide on the left is the actual ballot from november 2022. that shows the last state measure on the ballot in the first local measure, the middle slide is what will happen if we do opt out, and that's where the state measure has the proponents opponents listed but the local measure does not. and the third slide on the right is where there is no opt out, understand local side. and both the state and local measures have the proponents and opponents listed. you can see the real estate that each each measure uses increases and if we don't, usually without prior to a b 14 16, we could fit about eight measures on about and a side of a ballot. if we don't if we opt out because still fit about five measures on the ballot, but even having that the reduction of three space for

three measures means automatically an extra car. for us because of the other stateside. so if we don't if we don't opt out, we're going to add another card on the local side, and that's a concern for us is the cost, of course, but also just the size of the ballot going into november. 2024 if we go at seven cards are more so again. that's why that we are recommending that the that the board adopted chilling legislation opt out of 14 6, maybe 14 16. and that's my presentation. i can take any questions. thank you. essentially it's almost like part of our voters. guy will be part of the ballot itself. separately ballot cards and then of older guy. which people already could get it online. um isa ronan. okay, this makes person so it's the ballot itself , not the ballot guide. right and so this is brand new, so we've never we've never had opponents and proponents on the

actual ballot before i don't remember and to and who like how many who would be, is it? whoever could you explain who would be listed well, it would be the part of the official proponents and opponents. so the same facial proponents, let's say in the border for the official argument about information path would again then be printed. with the ballot question. on the ballot. okay. that was my question. essentially where we see phone book um, supervisor and guardia . thank you for joining us. thank you. hi i know that you are directed to make cuts this year. um my question or concern is about how those cuts might affect access to language. i represent district where people really a lot of people rely on various languages that are that are offered. and i understand that you have four languages. english chinese, spanish filipino that all the ballots are provided in. um but my question is the budget.

legislative analysts said that that there would be your reductions would mean that there would be an elimination of signage in additional languages to those four that i just mentioned. so can you talk a bit like what does that mean? like how are how are other languages going to lose out so to speak with these cuts? so there's no reduction in in in materials or content to the voters were actually consolidating our signage. uh brother than creating individual pieces of information. so that's how we were able to have a cost reduction is by were actually in the process now of having a larger voting place a polling place sign at the polling places which would consolidate the content in language instead of having individual pieces of information at the polling places, for instance. okay. and then what about? so i understand that, uh, so vietnamese, korean , japanese, thai and burmese,

although the ballots are printed in the language, there are resource guides that are offered in those languages. no affected at all. so there's so in in california, the secretary of state's office reviews demographic information for each precinct. and then if there's a certain count, i think it's 3% or more people have indicated that they use a language other than english in that precinct. then even so that we have to create what's called effect similar ballots. so we create ballots that in those additional languages, but we don't and then we provide those at the polling places. we also inform voters who are we have information on in the registration database. we've indicated that there from countries that speak those languages there we have they we have facsimile ballots available, and if they want one, we can. we can provide that ballot to them. so we provide these facsimile or copies of ballots in in the additional languages, but we don't create

voter guides in those languages . so i guess the bottom line is there any of the budget constraints that you have putting any of these language resources at risk. and if so, is there something that we can do to help that? no i don't think so. i think this budget does support the department providing language assistance going forward for the next two fiscal years. we did retain our grant funding going for the there was a reduction in the grant funding, but we did retain $100,000 going into the march election and then $200,000 go against november. i think, coupled with our outreach efforts. and with the grants that we can provide, and we went, really the main message for the march election will be the potential crossover voting for non for people who without party affiliations who potentially want to vote. about from the political party that allows nonpartisans to vote their for their presidential candidates. that's the main message. i think the grant money from march would would augment

our efforts. then i think also for november of the $200,000. i mean, there's always the need for ranked choice voting. i mean, just you just have to have that message going out there every election. but also the non citizen voting aspect that we would be something that we can continue with the grant funds. for november 2024 and that is also in language and if other than english, it's not. it's not just in english. so, no, i mean, certainly. you know, we you know, we're planning now for our efforts in march and november were you know the time that we have, and also the resources we have now we're also putting into march in november, so i think that we can provide really more than adequate language access these next two elections with with this budget. all right. thank you. thank you, supervisor and cardio and just wanted to actually pick you back up on that question. specifically uh, just want to know that there is a bore education election in

2024 with that comes with a noncitizen or also known as immigrant voting and what you're i think from what you just said. what you're saying was that, um, i if i correct me if i'm wrong, that there's no reduction in terms of the outreach funding for the non non citizens slash immigrants voting on the outreach for the for the funding that we would allocate towards the department's outreach efforts, no there's no reduction in there may there are changes, but you know it will be good and the grant grant funds that we've had will be a bit less, uh, for november 2024, but not by much. i think we had for last election. it was $300,000. number 2022. now we're going to have $200,000 in the grant program for november 2024 and the purpose of that large, large purpose for those grand funds

would be to get our reach to people who would be eligible to vote and who are non citizens who could vote in the board of education contests and you say $200,000 correct. thank you, um with that. i don't see any, um, names on the roster. we will go to public commons for item number eight. thank you, madam chair members of the public who is to speak on this ordinance regarding the municipal elections code. in our joining us in person should line up now and for those who have joined us remotely and haven't already done so press star three if you wish to enter the speaker line, and for those already in the queue, police continue to wait until the system indicates you happened and media and that'll be your signal to begin their comments. signal in person speakers here in the chamber. ah! it looks like we have five members of the public listening to the meeting with three in the queue. so the second half if you could meet her color, first color, please.

okay that appears to be a nine attended line. perhaps we can come back to that one. eileen broken speak sunset park site education action committee. uh i following up from my written submission, submission opposed unilaterally, um, opting out of the 14 16 santiago, and the rationale was that simply opt out without even trying it one in one election, such as march of 2024, and then getting feedback from voters think that would be unfortunate it also this feeds into the other item on the ethics commission when the mayor is both cutting the budget for the ethics commission and urging the city to opt out of a before 13 16 santiago. that

could create the perception of this being a pattern of thank you. thank you much eileen. broken for your comments. and before we, uh before we hit our next speaker for the group that just arrived and perhaps have missed. my initial announcements has since we are in the middle of discussions. if you could please silence all cell phones. um just so you don't interrupt any of the discussions happening. thank you much. um, miss second laugh. next speaker, please. great david bill, people i assume you can hear me. i respectfully disagree with my friend eileen broken on this issue. i support the ordinance to opt out for the reasons stated by director aren't the eliminating the necessity for an additional card saving about 500,000 that way, and i think it's pretty clear that i'm a big fan of sunshine and transparency , but in this case, i don't think having proponent and

opponent names on the actual ballot further is sunshine and transparency. um i think ballot measures should be evaluated on their merits. however they legally got onto the ballot, whether it's a charter amendment an ordinance, declaration of policy bond measure, etcetera, um and not, you know. do you support this measure because it's proposed by supervisor so and so or opposed by david pill powell or anybody else? i think it we should not get into, uh, evaluating measures or promote. evaluating measures based on the proponents and opponents, and i think that information is available on the voter information pamphlet, which people are encouraged to review, but i don't think the proper place for it is on the ballot. and to the extent that we have the option to opt out of this state law. i think we should support the ordinance for the

reasons stated thanks for listening. thank you. my stephen pil pil fairy comments. yes my second life. we can go back to that user. so on the ethics commission funding. the mayor's office. oh mr decosta. we have not opened the public comic get on the on the a o or a so right now we're taking comments on the ordinance amending the municipal elections code as item made on our agenda. thank you very much. thank you much francisco the cost. i'm sure we'll hear from you later. and uh, with that, madam chair that complete turkey. thank you see you. no more public comments. public common is now close and colleagues. i think that i, uh, the fact that the legislation itself tells us that it just very cumbersome to read a ballot measure. i want to say that, um

we do have a already put in place a ballot simplification process precisely for the goal to simplify the ballot itself, you know, and that we do have actually my i may say thank you to director art. a very great um , voter sky that actually comes with it. and in fact, i think that your department and does has done a great job time. the voter sky with the ballot, uh, in your mouth in your mailbox and you, actually when you open it up, it's your it's your ballot and your voter guides arriving really almost the same day, if not a day difference. so with that, i would say i would like to move item eight with recommendation to full bore and a second. second by supervisor self i e call on item eight. yes madam chair on that motion had to afford the ordinance as item number eight to the july 11th meeting of the full board with a positive recommendation, and vice chairman norman gentlemen, i remember self. i suffer a i

remember ronan. ron and i remember walton. walter and i church hand. i have five votes. thank you. the motion passes. thank you. uh the next item is retirement board. thank you for being here. and before you begin, i just want to do a quick reminder. i think that just given the time constraints, let's try to limit to five minutes. presentation um , but that's not to say you should just stop short your entire presentation. but let's just be mindful of time. thank you. sure. and if i could get the slides i have them on the

screen. thank you. so good afternoon. i am alison romano, the ceo and c i o the san francisco employees retirement system. i want to thank the supervisors here and the b l t b l. a team on the budget process. you've been tremendously helpful. so let's start. with the mission. because the mission is what establishes why we need a budget and what we need. the budget for the spurs mission is dedicated to securing protecting and prudently investing the pension trust assets, administering mandated benefit programs and providing promised benefits to the active and retired members. simply put. our business is threefold. it's investing. it's administering benefits and running the operations of our business so that we can do both of those activities. so what we need to do. is fund each of these in the most efficient and sufficient manner so that we can achieve our mission. i would note that

spurs is self funded. the budget is funded through the trust and receives no, um, budget dollars from the general fund. spurs isn't a very strong position as of july 1 2022. we were 96% funded, which is an enviable position across city and state plans in this country. our long term performance continues to be strong. 5 10 20 years we have beaten our actuarial rate of return and done it in a significant way over 10 years by 2.7% which is translates into real dollars in the in the funds. so who do we serve? and what do we use these budget dollars for? we operate the defined benefit plan the deferred comp plan and invest the assets for the retiree healthcare trust fund. what i want to bring your attention to is how much that these organizations in. these plans have grown over the last 10 years. the net assets value of the assets in the db plan or

33.1. that's 114% more than 10 years ago, and we served 30% more members on the d c side. we've grown our assets by 100% and growing our participants by 37% those are significant numbers. so that brings us to our budget. we are proposing fifth budget of 51 million in fiscal year 23 24. and 54 million in fiscal year 24 and 25. now we were given the guns to provide our budget and in a pie chart here, and it tells a very simple story, which is that the vast majority of our budget goes to supporting the administration and the investment of the pension plan. and for the pension, the d c and the retiree health care fund again that is self funded. so all of the funding sources are through trust assets, uh and through the third party plan administrator for the d c plan. i'd also like to highlight for this group that we went through an extensive budget process with

our operating committee and the spurs retirement board and had a really robust dialogue about our needs going forward. um and it is with their support that we are putting forward the budget today. we have aligned our budget request with our strategic priorities, and what i want to highlight is two key strategic priorities that have an impact on our budget, and these are significant. two areas of focus one benefits administration. we want to align our head count with the complexity of the plan and the growth in membership. i will hit in much more detail on this. and secondly for business operations . we want to better utilize technology to enhance our efficiency in running the business. so turning to our specific need. in, um retirement services for additional headcount. i'm very aware of the budget situation for the city this year, and i know that this

in context is a big ask one again. this would come from the trust fund and not hit general dollars. but let me tell you why i'm here today. and i'll be straight. spurs does not have sufficient staff to effectively and efficiently administer the plan because it's grown in membership and complexity. simply put. we're delivering today, but we are not going to be able to continue deliver without additional headcount memberships up 30% plan complexity has grown. we administer 14 plans and our need to provide more services has grown as the demographics of our members have changed. we proposed 18 fts over two years emphasize these are frontline positions that these are people who have direct contact with our members and are at the core of our business. they will help us complete core business function . a proven efficiency improved processes to deliver on what we need to deliver on for our members and provide us a, um, an

opportunity to develop talent so that we can continue to deliver these services in the future. i would like to just provide quickly some context because this isn't a big gas we have presented to our board a benchmarking study where we looked at our head count versus peer plans and retirement services area and when we look at what your plans in california have in terms of headcount are asked for 18 is only half of what we would need to be in line with our peers. so while it seems large, um we were very cautious and wanted to make sure that we are prudent with our dollars that we spend. we've included in the materials the slide of for staffing overtime hits on the point that i already discussed and i would emphasize that the budget in total with this additional ask represents 0.145 of the assets that we

manage. so it is small in comparison to the assets we manage. we've included a chart, which is a bit of an eye chart. i know and these materials and i won't go through that in detail, and i will conclude by living with you a few points on how we continue to deliver on a mission. as i mentioned, we're very well funded. we've beaten our return over the long and medium term. we despite having challenges, uh, in terms of staffing on the member services side, you can see a lot of statistics and how we serve our members. i'll add that we have certified bilingual staff that can work with our members and we're working to ensure that our website has enhanced accessibility are deferred comp plan has 57% participation rate among employees. lastly what i want to leave you with is that my role and the role of everybody. it's furs is to be a good steward of capital and being a good steward of capital

means investing the assets. and . uh running the business in a way that helps us administered the benefits and deliver on behalf of all the hardworking individuals that serve the city and county of san francisco. so with these budget dollars that i don't take lightly, they go directly to us being able to be good stewards of that capital. thank you. thank you. i. so as well and said okay, i just quickly ask the questions of i just want to understand the salary of your ceo. me. you. yeah. uh sorry. your salary and compared to, um perhaps your lowest pay, uh, worker in your units or in your division. i would have to get back to you on the exact statistics. okay? i would love to understand that ratio between you know your pay and your lowest worker pay within the entire division. and

just kind of understand that just, um have a better understanding of that. and supervisor walton. thank you. chair chan. thank you. so much for the presentation. just a quick question. i know. you said the percentage of the budget that is staff is like zero point. what is it again? um the are the budget before you today is 0.145. of the total assets that we manage in the pension plan. and so i know you mentioned some concerns about not having adequate staffing. are there rules in place that prevent you from being able to bring on that staff? what what we're asking for with this budget is to be able to do that. and i would say again for context. uh, that 0.145% is a low ratio of expenses to assets under management when we look across other plans, and what was

the percentage prior to today's proposal. ah! it doesn't change that much because the incremental dollar point something something. thank you. thank you and supervise with sephardi. thank you, chair. um. for the past year. i've been the president of this body. and we did the recruitment for allison and as our new ceo c i o one thing to make note is that and this was forward thinking rather than having to positions we merge them into one. so she is the ceo and the c i o and part of the reason we did that is because in a competitive market and comparable pension funds around the country. to attract the talent that i think alison brings to the table. we had to put together a package that would attract whether it was her whomever, um, to managing a $33

billion fund to be competitive in that nature, and so the way that we came about that was by merging two positions so that we could then go out. um this is a position now, that is, uh well, we did a charter amendment last year if you recall where we did some pension reform for our pre 1996 retirees, but we also made um this position no longer civil service, but it's that it goes through the process of the retirement board. and that body, um and part of the need. for the additional staffing, as was presented by the c e o. c i o is because of the assets that we managed the way in which we're interacting with our asset managers that are external and the ability to ensure that our system which i think is today is either 97% or 98% funded, um even in a down economy, so there is a necessity. this doesn't cause the general fund any

money, it cost the system itself , which is very well funded. the ability and so we're investing to continue to make money and to ensure that the system is um, able to remain as solvent as it is. so anyway, i just wanted to add a little bit of context to that because we were because i was intimately involved in that process. and i think it will get to your question a little bit later because once you see the salary compared to the lowest paid worker also have to take into consideration. she's now doing two jobs that were originally done by two different people. thank you. thank you, but you do have a deputy director. i have a chief operating officer karen borden. thank you. i am normally reading off your salary. the salary ordinances, says listing a w director for investment. um. that's all i'm trying to go with and trying to have a better understanding. of this, but i see that it's listed on the or chart here. i appreciate it.

thank you. i don't see any more questions from my colleagues. i look forward to continue this conversation. thank you for so much for being here today will go to the next department, which is thank you. mayor's office of housing and community development. this is over. yeah. all right.

hello again. supervisors i'm going to kick us off. as you know. the mayor's office as a department contains both the office. of the mayor of the mayor's administration, as well as the mayor's office of housing and community development. um, so the total budget for this department is almost $200 million.06 percent is the office of the mayor, so i'm going to briefly touch on the mayor's office budget, and then benjamin mccloskey, cfo for the um mayor's office of housing community of elopement, we'll take us from there. so the office of mayor budget is about $10.9 million. it grows a little bit in the second year, and it's largely personnel. it supports 47 f t e and then we have a number of contracts, including our lobbyist contracts, um for state and federal lobbyists. we did make some budget reductions we reduced 125,000 and project savings and increased attrition to account for staff turnover. overall the net increases you're seeing in our budget, our

changes to salaries and benefits , according to citywide cola changes, as well as some increases the citywide work orders that is the office of the mayor, and i'll turn over the bulk of the discussion about mostly d. good afternoon supervisors. uh some of you may remember some of these slides and content from our budget preview conversation we had a few weeks ago. ah the sources of most seeds proposed budget for the next fiscal year about 41% from the general fund. 24% is the housing trust fund. about 18% is work orders from other city departments that 9% of developer contributions for market rate housing developers, and you can see the other more minor revenue sources on the slide. as far as how we deploy those funds about 54% of our budget is grants to community

based organizations. about 30% will be affordable housing loans about 7% salary and fringe, and then we have some debt service and work orders and non personnel expenses as you can see on the slide. uh the chair asked us to address a few key key questions. our mission is to support san franciscans with affordable housing opportunities and essential services to build strong communities. ah and that the chair asked for us to address. how do we how do we approach language access and poverty alleviation. all of most seeds. work um, is centered around these two topics. we try to do all of our work in racially culturally and linguistically appropriate modalities. uh the chair also asked about our performance measures, and we could, of course at another time. discussing more detail about

what those look like. but super high level in our community development grant making our key performance measure is and duplicated client count. so as we're making grants to our community based partners, how many clients are those cbo partners serving. and then in the affordable housing loans and grants category is the number of units were producing or preserving through our loans. uh huh. on the housing development and preservation investment side of things that the budget before you includes $44.5 million in the housing trust fund, which is broken down into 22 million for affordable housing loans. 4 million million for down payment assistance, loans and $8.5 million in grants to cbos. there's also $10 million general fund investment in the dream keeper down payment assistance loan program. $31 million work

order from hsh for the lost program and just shy of $16 million in non general fund funding through development agreements for housing development and affordable homeownership. now as we discussed a few weeks ago, the bulk of our funding for affordable housing development and preservation is from nine a sources so it doesn't come through this budget process that includes impact fees, development agreements, general obligation bonds and c. o p s. the latest capital plan update includes a $340 million affordable housing and shelters bond on the march 2024 ballot. and that will help fill in the gaps as we complete spending on the 2015 affordable housing geo bond, which we're almost done with and 2019. we're making great progress on. in the next

two budget years. we're anticipating completion of around 1800 new or substantially rehabilitated, affordable units. awards from our current no fas for site acquisition, educator, housing and repairs and closing approximately $775 million in new affordable housing loans over the next two budget years. the chair asked us to address some of our budgetary in operational challenges. we see these most in housing development. uh geo bonds are single largest source of local funding currently but they don't meet our our needs development impact fees have significantly decreased. federal and state funding has become more unpredictable. and at the same time we've had higher development costs, including escalation and hard costs for actual construction. and higher insurance costs. ah i wanted to

prefer provide a little bit of context for how we approach meeting the mayor's budget reduction targets. within within our budget. only the general fund budget is available for meeting the mayor's budget reduction targets, and our initial targets were $3.1 million in the first year. and $4.9 million in the second year. oh, and in order to meet these targets we needed to reduce the grants to cbo's line. item as you can see from the table is overwhelmingly, uh, that category of spending that we spend the general fund on however, we approached that task . uh, with a lot of seriousness and an attempt to minimize the impact who are cbo partners and the community as much as possible. first we were able to utilize $1.7 million in one time

savings and $1.6 million in federal revenue. to offset cuts, which would other be otherwise cuts to cbo grants that would otherwise be required. even doing that we eliminated our community building and capacity building grant programs, including $1.5 million of existing grants to cbos and $1.4 million of grant budget that was not yet committed to a cbo. but those steps altogether allow us to maintain cbo grants for direct services to clients. for all of our c for the cbos through the next two years of the budget cycle, so 23 24 and 24 25 by taking those steps and within the a o budget, we still are sustaining $60 million in services grants to cbos, including $20 million for eviction prevention and housing stabilization. $16 million

access to civil justice $14 million access to opportunity. and $4.7 million in access to housing. and with that were available for questions. am here are director eric shaw's here. and our director of community development. brian shoe is also here, and we have other folks on the line if you have other questions. thank you, supervisor walton. thank you, chair chan and thank you for the presentation. so. i don't know. director charlie. you want to answer these questions or who should who's responsible for the elimination of community out of most cd. who said, be talking to about that? hello mr supervisor , eric shaw, director of the mayor's office of housing, community development. are we joined by brian shute as well. there's some more specific questions on certain projects. so i was gonna ask the

philosophy behind. just cutting the community side of the office and you can't explain. that is because the amount of general fund resources. um, but. you didn't eliminate anything else. community is the community part of most cd, the only um, part of the department that receives general fund dollars. as you soften the slide from mr mccloskey, a large portion $54 million over general fund. um is through grants. the cbos is that the only right to the majority of our of our housing dollars? um our housing investment dollars come from bond funding and non a oh, so nothing else is funded by the general fund, but resources that go out the door to community based organizations. supervisor. uh.

this this slide might be helpful to understand the context. the answer to the question. i just want to know if that's the only thing that that that is funded from the general fund for the department. that's a yes or no question. no supervisor. it's not correct, so you couldn't cut a pencil a pen or something. you couldn't give anything else up. you had to 100% cut community. to achieve a b happy to talk you through these items if you'd like i can see the items in front of me. i've gone through budget reductions with the city department before. surely there was something you could have done aside from just could community. i don't i don't need a lesson on what you are what you did. i wanted to understand why you did it, which i will never be understand when the office is the mayor's office of community of housing and community development. it makes no sense to me. i think, mr supervisor um. we still met the

goals of maintaining the integrity of all the services that were provided and the pools in particular one of the pools, which is capacity building um is some investments are made sometimes to accelerate our augment. um. activities that would be funded generally by the organizations themselves. and so in that instance, there is a understanding and awareness. sometimes something can happen faster. a little bit of money from from most cd and those community capacity building grants, but also i'm a i'm, a board chair of a night of two nonprofit organizations, and these are either operations or strategic planning work that organization with budget for themselves. um in addition to that, as we had a real focus on the services, eviction defense tenant right to counsel a lot of the core um, services that all of us have a shared goal for there was still a question

around sort of um the relation of. some community building efforts that may be tangential but not actually delivering the services, so we really worked to ensure the core integrity, um and the those line items were kept in place. i just want the record to state though you eliminated community building. out of the most cd budget. mayor's office of housing and community development. i just maybe we need an ordinance to take community out of the department name, okay? um. i know earlier. we want to department of technology. we're discussing, um. providing internet service and access across the city. there's a program that. you mostly d provides to provide refurbished computers to public housing and affordable housing. residents did you all cut in that area, too? i'm going to defer to mr

chu has information on that. uh brian chu, director of committee development, mohd d, um we did not make any cuts in our continuing grants for digital equity and in terms of the referred between of computers where moving ahead we've identified 700 computers, um through our partnership with the same francisco public library and we're still on track. to offer those 700 computers. 350 of them will be going to those 17 sites that have been, um uh, set up with the fiber fiber to housing sites that director general mentioned and another 350 will be given out through community organizations. those organizations include just for example, uh, of five keys tnbc the baby y um and it's in a partnership with death mission, which has expertise in the computer referred fishing area.

so we've identified those computers are now in the process of delivering them both to the affordable housing sites and to the nonprofits. and what percent of your budget or the dollar amount goes to making sure property managers are providing quality housing, making sure they're taking care of residents. how much money would you say goes into making sure that that happens? um and so in that to that answer, mr supervisor, i think you know that we, um incorporate property managers, part of the operating costs for the buildings. so usually there's not supplemental dollars that are done there. um that the property management is covered by the cost of the rents . i will note that i think you know this, too, and working closely with our services team that's led by helen hale, um her her her salary sort of sent funded by our budget associate with, um some of the monitoring accountability. the trauma informed systems training. those things are are through the services team. but the general

property management is associated with the operating costs of the buildings themselves. what can we what can we do to make sure we hold property managers more accountable? i guess is what i'm trying to get to adviser mean i thank you for your partnership. i mean, we shouldn't have to. i'm so there's some emphasis right now. we do do monitoring on these properties. i think they call them annual monitoring reports. we're trying to understand how to make those more responsive. um, two years ago, we created that a new director of asset management and spun that team out to accelerate the reviews of those. i think you know that when we're hearing these issues right now we're working to be as responsive as possible immediately. and then in addition to that, and we've been working with helen and her team to build out some more direct guidance around this proactively to property managers. we also understand, though, that there is just a um , the sort of thing with asset managers and property managers right now we're sort of feeling

that crunch, um, with respect to just availability of those, but that shouldn't mean that that the lack of that general sector being filled out is not an excuse for, um ensuring that we have safe and affordable house within the city. united states space on that, sir. and they do respond. to a request from the city to become a property manager, right? like like this is something that they say they can do and are willing to do and have the ability to do. it depends on the type of housing. um so for our, um our mps for new development. property management teams are part of the development part of the proposal team for that, and then i know that when we had the rap properties and other properties that was part of that package there so in some instances, i'm not sure the full procurement of those, but i do know that we, you know, we do monitor those as well. but in most most certainly, in every case, whoever is the property manager , they step up and say this is

something they have the ability to do and provide correct, sir. thank you. thank you, supervisor walton and supervisor preston. welcome to joining us and the floor is yours. thank you. care chair chan and i just jumped on the roster when it's empty. i don't want to. i know there's another committee member on the roster, so just want to defer okay. thank you, sir. restaurant and thank you, chair chan, um, and budget committee members for all your work, and i have some comments, and we'll keep questions brief for on foremost, c d, um. i let let me just start with maybe if mr mccloskey can come back up or director shock and answer this, but there's a $20 million item missing from your presentation. can you supplement your presentation and talk about the $20 million cut

that wasn't unless i missed. it wasn't part of the presentation. uh, supervisor the as part of the mayor's proposed budget, existing appropriations for the housing stability fund were reduced by $20 million. right. so these studies are the funds, for example, that are used for acquiring properties where tenants are at risk of eviction to create community land trust funds that we spent an inordinate amount of time discussing and debating at the board of supervisors appropriated. to um most cd to the tune of $64 million. we've had many hearings discussing the expenditures. things were delayed while the rules were being amended and so forth. money has started going out the door and now rather than spend it, proposing a $20 million cut . i just i i'll make some comments, but i think it's kind of problematic to not have that as part of a presentation. of the mayor's proposed budget here . $20 million cut colleagues to what we had appropriated for preservation. but you know, i

had intended to start on a more positive note. i just wanted to complete that presentation. um so i do want to note starting note of appreciation from mayor's office of housing. community development for their commitment to some of the programs we've worked on together, most notably the for the tenant right to counsel program. i want to thank you for all your work on that and also for, um to the mayor's office for maintaining in this proposed budget, full funding for the right to counsel program despite the constraints on our budget this year, i think this program serves as a national model to making sure renters have access to legal counsel is one of the most cost effective tools we have. have to keep san franciscans in their homes. and prevent further homelessness. so i appreciate the collaboration on that and the proposal to maintain funding for that program. um i have to say, though, as i alluded to around

the $20 million cuts, very different picture when we look at funding for new, affordable housing, and, you know colleagues, as you know. earlier this year, the board unanimously approved the housing element. the new housing element with targets to create 46,500 new, affordable homes for working san franciscans by 2031. these targets are three times higher than any previous goals set by the city. uh um. and in the most recent cycle as we've discussed the city and a mandate to create a fraction of 16,000 new homes and only delivered on approximately half of that goal so with dramatically increased targets, one would expect and equally ambitious roadmap to meeting those. oh, such plan in this proposed budgets certainly does not reflect such a plan. i think that the proposal is deeply concerning on this front and i won't eliminate comments

to this targeted issue. um the budget completely ignores the mandate of san francisco voters and from this board by unanimous resolution to use prop i revenue for affordable housing that measure with passed in november . 2020 has to date raised more than a quarter billion dollars and i'm frustrated beyond words that the housing experts at most , he'd have been and i will say this in the most charitable light. silent. on the use of these funds. and have never called for a dollar of these funds. to be used. for affordable housing in san francisco. you know when the police believe that they don't have the resources to meet their goals, there is a full court press and lobbying operation. to get additional funding. but when most cd is not on track to meet their affordable housing goals,

even with money raised, ostensibly for that very purpose. by this board and by the voters of san francisco. we get not even proposals or requests to use those funds for affordable housing. it doesn't make sense. i don't understand it. i will never understand it. i will never understand how the voters and the board can in unison say we want these hundreds of millions of dollars to be used for affordable housing, and we don't hear even the slightest whimper or request. from most cd to use those funds for that purpose. it makes no sense to make matters worse as i referred to before. not only is the mayor's office not using new money for affordable housing, this budget actually proposes to raid money previously allocated by the board to affordable housing. the fact that it's not in their presentation today shows that that is not something they are proud of. and it's something that in fact, they don't want the public to see the mayor's budget seeks to remove $20 million as noted from the housing stability fund for small

sites acquisition, one of the city's most effective anti displacement tools. these are funds that the supermajority the board of supervisors voted to allocate in november 2021. that the mayor's office has slow walk spending on for nearly two years and just when the spending is starting to get going now, the mayor's office has the nerve to seize. uh, these funds, claiming that the funds are unspent. and therefore available for other purposes. in this time period over the last couple years. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of san franciscans who could have benefited from having their homes, taken off the private speculative market and acquired to become community land trust, but most cd has chosen to delay expenditures of these funds and now to divert them to other purposes. um so just focusing on the housing element one recommended strategy to meet our goals of housing stability is to increase funding for building acquisitions. the first strategy in section 2.3,

the housing element characterized as short term in 0 to 2 years, uh, reads as follows . quote this and i'd like to have your comment on it. director shaw quote. prioritize. this is a short term goal, prioritize and expand funding for the purchase of buildings for acquisition and rehabilitation programs that serve extremely low to moderate income households. that's what these funds in the housing stability fund for side acquisitions are four. so my question director shaw is. do you agree with that strategy recommendation that i just read that in the housing element? and we implement programs in line with that strategy, mostly d was a main partner supporting officer planning and drafting that housing element. and provided guidance and comments to make sure there was aligned with both the vision and existing policy. thank you. and so if you agree with that recommendation and sounds like had a hand in drafting it, why

does your budget not seek to prioritize and expand? expand funding but rather does the opposite and removes $20 million in funding for this very strategy. i think that we need to understand that, um there are other tools and other partners that can help support us in this effort. we're working closely to align with enterprise. we're working to align with the half. we're working to align with the lisk with leske. and then also, um i see. um, director hill is here as well under the mayor's housing for all, um, executive directive. he and i are co chairing the work facilitated with dan adams on working with housing leaders and community leaders to identify additional resources, um, to continue to meet the goals detailed above production and preservation within the housing element. have you? are you saying you've identified other sources for the $20 million of investments in

the otherwise unfunded goals of act with small sites, acquisitions and specifically land trust? because that's new to me. if there's suddenly a $20 million fund that you just mentioned that can be available , i think we want to recognize that within the universe of affordable housing funding, the city is not the only funder and we continue to work with the other partners, which include list which has a find, um potential additional state resources. um enterprise has a fine that's coming from national . um matter has a find which meta formally facebook has a find that we continue to work to make sure that we are aligning all the resources available. the not just the city resources to implement the acquisition preservation. um acquisition and preservation. work within the city. do you think it's a fair characterization that the proposed budget defunds community land trust in san francisco? yes. thank you. so i just want to know to mr supervisor that, um, acquisition

preservation is one component of our community stabilization strategy, which includes tenant right to counsel, rental subsidies and those spaces as well. and so, um, we realized that that there's a there's a multi legged stool and we still have a prioritization of community stabilization and anti displacement. thank you. i'm just going to say that this this so undermines like the entire exercise. and i won't belabor this point colleagues because i know you've got a lot to you know, we could spend a whole hearing on this. the entire exercise of prop. i was grew out of meetings with director sean, the department in which they say we can't do things like land trust. because we don't have the money, right? we have the tax credit programs. we have these other things as have been described. we can leverage to get money. there are other strategies that have no funding , so supervised or we can't do those things. we don't have dedicated funds to do community lunches. we dont have big head funds to do limited equity co ops