i believe meghan wallace should be in seat two representing the county superintendent of schools and not the sfccd. and i believe meghan was misspelled and nancy hom is correct in seat number four. again, i support all three appointees and look forward to their continued service on the treasury oversight committee. thanks for listening. >> public comment is now closed. >> okay. i would, colleagues, like to make a motion to amend all three motions by removing in the long title the word reject and at line three and at line 17 in the moved clause, remove the word reject. i note that the subject resolution for ms. wallace has the name spelled correctly in the resolution. on that motion, a roll call to amend all three items to have them only read approving and approves. a roll call please. [roll call vote] >> the motion passes without objection. >> i will motor vehicle a motion to be send all three items with recommendation to the board of supervisors. roll call please. >> yes, on that motion. supervisor chan. >> yay. >> chan, aye. >> vice chair mandelman. >> aye. >> mandelman, aye. >> cha

item 35 appoints ben reechb field, item 36 appoint -- rosenfield, item 36 appoints meghan wallace, and item 37 appoints nancy hom, all to a term ending june 17, 2026. >> president walton: seeing no names on the roster, we will take these items same house, same call, and without objection, these motions are passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 39. >> clerk: item 39 is a motion -- this motion was recommended as amended with a new title. this motion approved the mayor's nomination for the appointment of paul woolford to the public works commission for a term ending july 2, 2026. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call, and without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 40. >> clerk: item 40, this motion was amended with a new title. this is a motion approving the president of the board of supervisors shamann walton's nomination for the appointment of alec lemberg to the board of appeals for a four-year term ending july 1, 2024. >> president walton: than

item 35 appoints ben reechb field, item 36 appoint -- rosenfield, item 36 appoints meghan wallace, and nancy hom, all to a term ending june 17, 2026. >> president walton: seeing no names on the roster, we will take these items same house, same call, and without objection, these motions are passed unanimously. madam clerk, please call item 39. >> clerk: item 39 is a motion -- this motion was recommended as amended with a new title. this motion approved the mayor's nomination for the appointment of paul woolford to the public works commission for a term ending july 2, 2026. >> president walton: thank you, madam clerk. seeing no one on the roster, we will take this item same house, same call, and without objection, this motion is approved unanimously. madam clerk, please call item number 40. >> clerk: item 40, this motion was amended with a new title. this is a motion approving the president of the board of supervisors shamann walton's nomination for the appointment of alec lemberg to the board of appeals for a four-year term ending july 1, 2024. >> president walton: thank you, madam cler

meghan? >> that still sounds weird to me, head wallace, i want to be respectful but i'm not sure how to say it. i apologize, really appreciate your work on this. i can imagine members of the public asking, the governor proposed 16 million in legislature why wouldn't we build in 16 as an assumes for example as that seems the minimum or why are we only assuming 20 million of the discussion block grant when it will be at least 67. what is our thinking? i'm assuming that we would come back to those in august. what is your thinking in not having that conversation now and delaying it until august. >> great question, i would say that, there are multiple reasons. for one, whatever we budgeted would be wrong in one form or fashion, it could be that we could get one more time. it could be that it's more discretionary block grant that is the same thing but in terms of block grant versus lcsf. if legislature is approached is what approved and that funding level is sbraed over 7 years, then we've miss applied a calculation around the source. the other this board needs to consider the strayed off. and so no

meghan? >> that still sounds weird to me, head wallace, i want to be respectful but i'm not sure how to say it. i apologize, really appreciate your work on this. i can imagine members of the public asking, the governor proposed 16 million in legislature why wouldn't we build in 16 as an assumes for example as that seems the minimum or why are we only assuming 20 million of the discussion block grant when it will be at least 67. what is our thinking? i'm assuming that we would come back to those in august. what is your thinking in not having that conversation now and delaying it until august. >> great question, i would say that, there are multiple reasons. for one, whatever we budgeted would be wrong in one form or fashion, it could be that we could get one more time. it could be that it's more discretionary block grant that is the same thing but in terms of block grant versus lcsf. if legislature is approached is what approved and that funding level is sbraed over 7 years, then we've miss applied a calculation around the source. the other this board needs to consider the strayed off. and so no