Good afternoon.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the May 20th, 2026 meeting of the budget and appropriation committee.

I'm Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Matt Dorsey and members supervisors Denny Souter, Shaman Walton, and Cheyenne Chin.

Our clerk, it's Brent Halipa.

I would like to thank James Kawana from SFGov TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcement?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

Should you have any documents to be included as part of the files?

They should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

Public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak on the west side of the chamber to your right, my left along those curtains.

And while not required to provide public comment, we do invite you to fill out a comment card and leave them on the trade by the television to your left by those doors.

If you wish for your name to be accurately recorded for the minutes, alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to myself, the budget and appropriations committee clerk at B R E N T.j.

Sf G O V dot O R G.

If you submit public comment via email, it will be forwarded to the supervisors and also included as part of the official file.

You may also send your written comments via U.S.

Postal Service to our office in City Hall at one Dr.

Carlton Big of the Place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And items acted upon today, actually after our observance of Memorial Day, will appear on the board of supervisors agenda of June 2nd, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

And before we get started, we'll need to excuse President Amendment.

I would like to move to excuse President Amendment from today's meeting.

Second by Vice Chair Dorsey and the roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Do we excuse Supervisor Mandelman from attending today's meeting?

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Member Sauter.

Sauter, I.

Member Walton.

Walton, I.

Member Chen.

Aye.

Chen.

Aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have five eyes.

The motion passes.

I also want to kind of walk us all through what we can expect from today's hearing.

And last week we have we heard presentations from the 13 enterprise departments that are part of the mayor's May budget submission.

Today, some departments will be returning for their second hearing to consider additional recommendations for budgetary reduction by the budget and legislative budget and legislative analyst.

EBA department is in agreement with the budget and legislative analyst uh recommendations.

Then they will not be returning to committee today.

However, if the department has outstanding issues or budget trailing legislation, which are items four through 11 on today's agenda, then they will be presenting today on those legislation.

For today's department, I will call up the department.

We will hear first uh from the budget and legislative analyst, and then then we'll hear the department's response, and then the committee will have discussion uh with the department to be able to um attempt to reach a resolution if we could today.

Um, with the exception of items four to four and five, each trailer will be heard with their corresponding corresponding departments.

If anyone is here from for item 12, the free city college hearing, that will be heard at the end of today's budget deliberation, which will be approximately 3 p.m.

Um with that said too though.

Um colleagues, I also want to prepare ourselves and the city departments a little bit, knowing that technically um these items will then again to be continued um to the June process.

Um budget process for like final deliberation together.

But but I do hope that we can have some conversation and make some decisions today.

So I urge everybody to sort of articulate their point of view about some of these um departments and also the budget and legislative um analyst recommendations as well.

So with that, uh Mr.

Clerk, please call items one through three together.

Yes, item numbers one through three.

Item number one is our hearing to consider the mayor's May proposed budget for the airport commission, Board of Appeals, Department of Building Inspection, City Planning Department, Child Support Services, Department of the Environment, Law Library, Municipal Transportation Agency, the Port Library, the Public Utilities Commission, the Rent Arbitration Board and Retirement System as of May 1st, 2026 for fiscal years 2026 through 2027 and 2027 through 2028.

Item number two is the proposed appropriation ordinance appropriating all estimated receipts and all estimated expenditures of the aforementioned departments, and item number three is the proposed annual salary ordinance enumerating positions in the same.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And then uh Mr.

Clerk, can you also please I call items four and five together?

Yes, items four and five.

Item number four is a res uh actually item numbers four and five.

Are resolutions concurring with the controller certification that department services can be performed by a private contractor for a lower cost and similar work performed by city and county employees.

Item number four is for protective services in the public utilities commission, and item number five is for security information and guest services, parking operations, shuttle bus services at the airport, citations, paratransit, parking meter collection security, towing, transit shelter cleaning services for the municipal transportation agency, janitorial services for the port, and security services for the public utilities commission.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have the controller's office.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Sauter, Walton, and Chin.

I'm Devin Macaulay, Controller's Office Citywide Budget Manager.

As you're aware, the charter permits the city to contract out services, provided that the controller's office certifies that those services can be provided at a more cost-effective rate, and the board concurs.

We call this proposition J, as that is the voter authorized that enables it.

This item is the authorization for various services accompanying the mayor's proposed May 1st budget.

Both items before you are biannual resolutions.

Item 4 reflects one service proposed by the Public Utilities Commission, which has not been previously received your approval.

Item five reflects 12 services, all have been previously approved at the airport, municipal transportation agency, port, and the public utilities commission that have longstanding analysis from the controller's office showing that the services would be more cost effective if contracted out.

I'm happy to take your questions now.

And if you have any questions about specific contracting out proposals, I suggest also raising those as these departments come before you.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um could you elaborate a little bit more about the ones that are not previously approved?

Yes, that is one service at the public utilities commission for protective services.

And that's for security.

That's for security.

And there is another public utilities commission security services that has been previously contracted out.

The reason why this one is separated is this is a new location for a new service of security detail.

Understood.

And the current location that is currently covered by contract, and then what is the also the new location that is currently not going to not cover by contract, and that with this approval will be covered.

I believe I would defer that to the public utilities commission.

My understanding is that the new one would be at the 525 Golden Gate address.

Understood.

And then the remaining is all their existing location.

Do we have a STP here?

Okay.

I do not see SIPUC.

Um, I don't have any other name uh on the roster at the moment.

We'll go to public comments on items four and five.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for these items four and five.

Uh the resolutions concurring with the controller certification for department services.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments uh for items four and five.

Um, public comment is now closed.

I do believe that if I remember correctly.

Well, we could actually always come back to this.

Correct.

Do we need to dispose item four and five now, or can we return here to dispose item four and five once as a PUC is here?

Oh, yeah, we we can come back to it, Madam Chair.

Great.

Um, with that, uh, let's go to budget and legislative analysts.

Mr.

Diane Goncher, did you have any announcements for us?

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Um, we have uh reports on eight departments before you today.

Um, we have agreement with two of those departments, my understanding.

Those would be Department of the Environment and the Port of San Francisco.

Our uh reports for those two departments start on page 37 and 43, respectively, for Department of the Environment, our um recommendations total.

Uh 100 uh sorry, 277,811 in the first year and 328,426 in year two for Port of San Francisco.

Um recommendations total.

914,678 dollars in the first year and 467,246 in year two.

We are available for questions on either of those departments.

And um, also happy to um give more details on the areas of disagreement for other departments when they are called up.

Thank you.

So with that, um, I believe airport is the first.

Good afternoon, Chair Shannon and members of the committee.

I'm Mike Nakornket, Airport Director of San Francisco International Airport.

I'm joined by my chief financial officer, Ronda Shu, as well as members of our finance and external affairs team.

Uh we appreciate the opportunity to update you on the progress of our discussions with the budget and legislative analysts' office.

Uh thank you to Dan Goldcher and uh Carrie Tam for your partnership throughout the process.

Uh last week I spoke before this committee to go over the airport's budget for the next two fiscal years and the airport, but received the BLA's recommendations in response to our proposal.

While we accept some of the recommendations, we respectfully disagree with the BLA's recommendations to deny four position substitutions and delete 10 vacant positions.

The proposed reductions would significantly impact our ability to serve San Francisco and Bay Area residents, sustain essential operations, and generate revenues for the city.

These benefits come at no cost to the city as the airport is self-sustaining while contributing to the general fund.

As mentioned in the previous hearing, the airport's proposed budget aligns staffing with passenger growth by reclassifying some positions to optimize the organization while maintaining flat overall head count.

And this is why every position is critical.

These denials and deletions will significantly impact the airport's ability to meet service levels, sustain essential operations, and generate revenues for the city.

The airport wide vacancy rate is 10.6%, and we're working hard to fill these positions.

For context, management positions represent only 7% of our workforce, a ratio we maintain deliberately as running a complex 24-7 operations requires clear oversight, accountability, and decision-making authority.

What's telling about our hiring priorities is management positions have a 15.8% vacancy rate, while frontline positions are only at a 10.2% vacancy rate.

Hiring has taken longer than anticipated, partly due to the city's approval process and when we've uh had to make difficult choices about which roles to fill first as the approval timeline has to be metered.

Uh we've consistently prioritize hiring frontline positions.

Um we've shown that our fiscal discipline uh by keeping the budget relatively flat and prioritizing frontline positions, even when hiring has been constrained.

Um, the positions we're seeking your support now are the ones needed to deliver the sixty million dollar annual service payment to the city, deliver a 12.5 billion dollar capital plan, safeguard the airport's operational efficiency, and meet forecasted passenger growth.

I'd like to thank you very much for your consideration, and if there are any questions that I or my team can answer, we are uh available to respond.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Oh, I don't see any name on the roster.

Um, let me ask this then really uh briefly.

I see that in your response, and thank you so much for your written response to us um that you mentioned that there's plus four position substitution denials, um, and that's inclusive with that four that there are actually three filled.

Do you mean that they're currently actually occupied?

But if they're a substitution, I I don't understand.

Uh I'd like to invite our uh chief financial offer officer Ronda Shoe to uh address that question.

Thank you.

Hi, this is Ronda Chu, um CFO for SFO.

Uh good afternoon.

Um, the questions about the substitution.

Uh the fill ones are sitting in the positions, the response has changed, and so that that's why we're reclassifying them to a higher uh position to meet the demands and the changing environment at the airport, uh optimizing uh the flat positions we have going forward to the next two years.

Sorry, so if you are actually substituting, so I'm just gonna give an example.

If you're substituting a 0922 to a 0941.

Up, sorry.

I'm just I mean, according to the director, corncats, um email to us that you indicated, for example, an air two two, like the recommendation 22 information technology to director's office, you're substituting from a zero nine two-two.

Let me call to a zero nine four-one.

I I don't need specific actually about that.

I'm just asking as like, so does that mean this person and you say it's currently filled.

Does that mean this person currently is occupying a position of zero nine two two and that you want to substitute them?

Correct, and essentially promoting them to zero nine four one, and then what is gonna happen to the zero nine two-two.

Um apologies.

Um Denise Payton, acting managing director of finance.

There's the mechanism we have mid-year in order to be able to fill positions, and sometimes it's either filling it specifically in that job class or perhaps filling it as a temping sumpt, right?

And then working on the recruitment because it's such an urgent need.

Um, IT, and you'll see it really throughout their multiple IT positions there.

We are in um and and and it's something I'm sure the city is experiencing as well.

Um, between cybersecurity, between staying ahead of um the technologies that even the airlines are introducing to the airport, we need to meet that need.

And so there has been an ability to fulfill, and thank you so much for the partnership with our mayor's office as well, but filling positions in the interim, and then this is correcting the underlying budgeted position for the need.

Sure.

But my my question is that my assumption is you now then have requisitions of a two, well, you now have two positions, right?

You are you are I see, so so is it going to essentially you're not a transitioning the existing zero nine two two into a zero nine four-one, but what you're doing is you're substituting it.

So essentially that they the the there's not a vacant of a zero nine two two.

Correct, correct.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I understand it is.

I just wanted to also make sure that I do understand what it is.

So technically, the classification of the job is this person occupying as a zero nine two two manager one.

We're now giving a new classification, what you are to say this is a 0941 manager.

Six six, yes.

And with the manager six, you now will just occupy that classification.

The previous classification of 0922 will no longer exist.

Correct.

The overall head count flat and meet operational needs.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for the answers.

I don't have any other questions.

I don't see any name on the roster.

We appreciate you.

We'll probably have more discussion later.

And with that, we'll go to the next department is library.

And while we have the library, Mr.

Clerk, please also call item six.

Yes, item number six is a resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expend the grant any amount of up to or approximately 1.1 million of in-kind gifts services and cash monies from the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library for direct support for a variety of public programs and services in the fiscal year 2026-2027.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Mr.

Library.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan, and committee members.

My name is Maureen Singleton, and I am the Chief Operating Officer for the San Francisco Public Library.

I want to start off by thanking our budget and legislative analysts Rashi Kirasani and Dan Gonsher for working with us this budget cycle.

And with respect to the budget itself, we are in agreement with the recommendations from the budget and legislative analyst, except for their policy consideration, where they mentioned the board that you should consider deleting our currently vacant chief innovation and information officer position.

And we are explicitly asking you not to accept that idea of deleting this position, because the that position is essential to both public and staff library services.

As we mentioned last week, it takes a village to provide library services for our community.

And that includes having the specialty services of our IT division.

And a couple things that I really wanted to call out about what's different about San Francisco Public Libraries IT division is that we see we play a role in helping the city bridge the digital divide.

That means providing web uh Wi-Fi services for free, access to technology, specifically looking at assistive technology.

You also have our electronic collections, our patron database, and as I've shared before, we are also actively engaged in technology literacy, and addition to providing overarching IT infrastructure and taking care of cybersecurity, as was mentioned by our sister department at SFO.

Our division of IT at the library also provides web services and media services.

And what's great about the media services is that it records our public programming and events that makes it accessible to folks who are not able to come to the library location for certain programming.

So that is available on the web.

Another bit of information for you as you deliberate the idea of retaining this CIO position is that they are also integral to planning the future of the library's long-term digital direction.

So they're working in concert with our chief of public services, our city librarian to determining what are the tech investments that we need to do in addition to maintaining a strong infrastructure.

We do work closely with the Department of Technology, but they focus more on the infrastructure on the staff side.

They do not support our public service IT infrastructure.

So, and when we're talking about cybersecurity, I just wanted to make you aware that that is in a key focus of our IT division at the library.

Not just because it's a best practice, but over 2024 and 2025 on the West Coast alone, there were three library systems that were attacked, and some were down for several months.

So having a leadership, a seasoned leader in this role for the library is essential for making sure that we are on top of all of the library cybersecurity needs.

I also want to just give you a little additional context about this position.

Our IT division has a total of about 37 FTEs.

This individual has a direct, will have a direct span of control of nine direct reports, none of whom are MEA positions, they're all IT classifications.

The budget for our IT division is approximately 17.5 million dollars.

And that managing that budget and planning for the future would be a key responsibility of the Chief Innovation and Information Officer.

So in short, eliminating this position, we believe would be detrimental to public service and the position of maintaining leading urban library for the citizens of San Francisco.

So with that, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have for us on the Chief Innovation and Information Officer.

With me today are our city librarian, Michael Lambert, and then also our chief financial officer, Mike Fernandez.

Thank you.

Supervisor Souter.

This position is currently vacant.

How long has it been vacant?

Sure, thanks for the question.

The position vacated in October of 25.

So we've been using that intervening time period to reassess what we wanted out of the chief information officer role, and that's why we have transitioned it into a chief innovation and information officer.

So we've been meeting with all of the chiefs across the library to see what it is that they're getting from our IT division that meets their needs, where do they want to go, and how do we invest in the future?

So we are pretty much ready to roll on the recruitment process.

The position is sitting with DHR and the mayor's budget office for approval.

So we'd like this opportunity to move forward to fill this position.

Thank you.

In the absence of this role being filled since October, where has that work gone?

Sure.

So right now, the work is actually divided between two people.

So they are taking this responsibility on top of their daily job responsibilities.

This includes the chief analytics officer for the library and also our networks and security officer.

I'm working closely with them, the three of us are trying very hard to move forward with the recruitment process, making sure we are maintaining IT services and addressing cybersecurity concerns and budget development and budget management.

Since this role was recently kind of redefined, would you say that it's when it's it's a elevation of sorts?

It's a broader scope, more impactful role now than before.

Is that sensitive?

Yes, it's definitely a broader role.

We want them more actively engaged in public service, IT components, interacting and consulting with public services rather than previously, it was more of a back-a-house perspective.

And with that expanded role, I'm pleased to say we are not changing the classification.

It is the same classification as before, and we do feel that's within the regular scope and span of a manager for.

Okay.

Thank you for the questions.

Thank you.

When do you plan to hire?

I would like to hire within the next four to five months if we do get the go ahead to fill the position.

So you anticipate that you were higher by the end of calendar year.

Yeah, yeah.

I just have to we have to be honest about the time it takes to recruit, assemble panels, do the interviews, and typically at the library for a chief level position, we do two rounds of interviews because we need to make sure that there's a connection with the management team.

Understood.

Could you go on to item number six?

Yes.

Happy to.

All right.

Um, so item number six is our annual budget trailing legislation.

This is a request to the Board of Supervisors to allow us to accept and expend grant monies from the Friends and Foundation of the San Francisco Public Library.

This allows us to expand our reach to the community and enhance and celebrate our community neighborhood branch libraries.

The acceptance expend for this coming fiscal year equals a total of approximately 1.12 million dollars, of which is distributed between both unrestricted and donor restricted.

The donor restricted funds basically are telling us that they want us to spend on a particular activity or at a particular location.

What's great about this program is that it allows us to maintain and support some of our signature programs summer stride, one city one book, our and our uh night of ideas that I've shared with the with the committee before.

Just a quick highlight on our One City One Book.

We anticipate making the announcement for the fiscal 27 selection in June.

Um, but I'd like to take this opportunity to showcase the One City One Book for the current year.

It's The World's IC by Fei Fee.

If you've not read it yet, get over to your favorite library location, check it out, or do an e-resource, it's an excellent read.

Um, and the other thing I wanted to showcase about the One City One Book Program is that really is designed to be a bridge building activity.

So across communities and across generations, we're all reading the same book, and we're gathering together to discuss these books and have thoughtful conversations about whatever it is the topic is that's highlighting in us in a selection.

Again, the other thing that we do with these annual friends grant monies is we celebrate our neighborhood branch libraries.

We do a lot of open houses, and in those open houses, we are also supporting the arts and community culture because we are providing honorariums for programmers and presenters and artists who are uh operating at those open house or various programming.

So it's a really good way for our institution to support the arts community in the library.

One last thing I wanted to take this opportunity to showcase for you is that this year in 2026 is the first time the library, the San Francisco Public Library is show uh engaged in a one book one coast on the West Coast.

This was the brain child of LA County Public Library.

So there are 10 Bay Area libraries that are participating in this, and this is another book that you should make sure you get over to the library and check out.

It's George Decay's They Called Us Enemy, and it's a powerful graphic memoir about incarceration, family, and resilience during World War II.

So with that, I'd like to end with just asking for your support in approving the annual accept and expend for our grant from the Friends of the Public Library.

And we are all still here to answer any questions or provide any additional information.

Thank you.

And so with that, let's go to public comments on item number six.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for this item number six.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee.

Hello, my name is Emily Garvey.

I'm the executive director of Friends of the San Francisco Public Library.

As library investors, advocates, and champions of the library, we hope that the funds in item six uphold the values of democratic access, community, and lifelong learning for all San Franciscans.

As um Chief Singleton noted, these uh funds support signature and beloved programs that happen throughout the year, uh, all over San Francisco and support neighborhood vitality around and in our branches.

Friends was founded in 1961, and this resolution is the next step in a legacy of support and library love.

Um, these funds derive from a community that is proud of their library and actively supports it through uh support of friends and through their patronage of the library.

Thank you much, Emily Garvey.

And seeing no other speakers, Madam Chair that completes our cue.

See no public commons, public comments now close.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full bowl with recommendation.

Second by Vice Chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan.

Seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey to refer this resolution to the full board.

Uh Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey Aye, Member Sauter.

Sodder, aye, member Walton.

Walton, aye.

Member Chen.

Chen, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

Um, colleagues, I am inclined to uh for the library.

I think I'm inclined to it's really because of duration of the vacancy of the library position.

Um, and I do understand that it's critical.

It's it's only been vacant since um October 2025, so it's like less than seven months period time period, and it sounds like you're I'm gonna trust that you will be hiring someone by the end of the calendar year, and I don't see any other questions, but I am inclined to reject the budget and legislative analysts recommendation, and that we will um have the um library to maintain this position to retain this position.

So thank you.

Uh so with that, um let's go to my apologies, colleagues.

Let me really see.

The next um departments are the department of building inspection and planning department.

And uh also please uh Mr.

Clerk, please call item number seven.

Yes, item number seven, pardon, is an ordinance amending the building code to adjust fees charged by the department of building inspection, amending the administrative code to allow the department of building inspection and planning department to charge notary fees and affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and I think let's start with the uh presentation for the budget legislature analyst.

Thank you, madam chair.

Um, first I will speak to the areas that we have disagreement with the department of building inspection.

Um our recommendations for department of building inspection start on page 22 of our report.

Um, we have disagreements with um for the fiscal recommendations, number one, number two, number 18, and number 20.

Uh number one, two, eighteen to twenty, these are all related to new vehicles or replacement vehicles that the department is requesting.

The problem is requesting a replacement of 10 vehicles per year of the two budget years, and we are recommending that the board deny two vehicles per year so that they would then get eight new vehicles replacement vehicles per year.

And we're basing this recommendation on the mileage of the vehicles proposed for replacement.

Of the 20 vehicles proposed for replacement over the two years, three have less than 10,000 miles on them, seven have less than 20,000 miles on them.

It's our understanding that the department wants to replace these vehicles because they are over 10 years old, even though they have low mileage.

However, based on our evaluation of the vehicle replacement plan, we believe that aid is more is is plenty of sufficient.

Um and would, and so just for a little bit more context, for the proposed vehicles for replacement have not been in use for over five years because they are those uh four vehicles required a part replacement that was too costly, and so they've been sitting unused for over five years.

Um we did not um see any convincing argument um why they why the workload um justifies all 10 vehicles for both years and that the their vehicles have lower mileage on average for city vehicles.

We also saw um the department's presentation um on slide number 15.

We think that there might be a technical error in the slide where they're referring to uh the first two lines on that slide to vehicles that have been out of service for like a year or so, and actually what the vehicles were recommending not be replaced are different vehicles that again have not been in use for over five years.

Those are our disagreements on the fiscal recommendations, excuse me.

And then we do have disagreements on policy recommendations related to upward substitutions of a manager one to a manager two.

Um we also recommend deleting a vacant department head three, which we do consider a policy matter for the board of subvisors.

Once there's greater clarity regarding the managerial structure and responsibilities of the merged plan uh of the merger that's being proposed between planning and building.

Um then we'd also finally under policy recommendations um there's uh we're recommending put putting 272,513 dollars of temporary salaries and fringe benefits.

Um that that be a policy matter for the board.

This is related to the permit SF project.

Um, and the budget is uh will according to the department will be used to support um temporary technology expert one and 9976 position.

In addition to this position, uh the proposed budget also includes two positions at city planning uh for the to support the permit SF project, which we're happy to speak to once the city planning department is called up, available for any questions you might have on this matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, supervisors.

Are we on item number seven, the fee ordinance, or are we above your response to the budget and legislative recommendation?

And then we have discussion and they can also respond or you can also present item seven.

Sure, can you please bring up the slide deck?

SFCup TV.

So as the budget and legislative analyst mentioned, and by the way, thank you for your cooperation over this past week.

We recognize what a difficult and busy time this is for you.

Um I guess we will speak to DBI first, although our presentation addresses both DBI and planning.

So DBI has only one VLA recommendation that we are in disagreement uh with, and that is the four vehicles.

DBI has a fleet of currently 99 vehicles.

It used to be a hundred and fourteen.

Since the pandemic, we have not replaced any, and uh uh 15 have been turned into central shops for various failures, catalytic converter thefts, battery, uh battery breakdowns, and 10 of the um uh half of the cars that we're recommending replacing have already been turned in.

So of the four that the budget legislative analyst is recommending we not replace, two of them have already been turned in years ago.

There's there are no vehicles that have been sitting unused for years.

If a vehicle is broken, we turn it in immediately.

So these cars no longer exist, and we need them to do our inspections and to be prepared for any disaster that may come.

The other two are just very old, 2006-2007.

They're lower mileage, but they've already had significant uh repair costs over the past five years, and they are more and more sitting in central shops waiting for repairs.

So the question is is a 2006 Prius a good reliable car?

Probably, but if we have an earthquake or a major disaster and we need to get inspectors out there to see is a building gonna slide down a hill, is a building safe for firefighters or police or first responders to enter, we need reliable cars that work.

So standard in the city has been uh 10-year useful life or vehicles.

These vehicles have been 20 years old, so we think it's very it's an important safety issue to replace them.

Also, it's been the city's goal now for a long time to electrify the fleet.

We're planning to buy electric vehicles, so we're excited about that.

City administrator has worked hard installing new infrastructure at 49 South NS, so we would like to fully take advantage of that.

So, yeah, for the vehicles, it is not just it is our inspection capacity, our ability to make sure we have the vehicles to go out and do the inspections.

The reason why mileage is low is because some inspection districts are in the neighborhood downtown, but we need the cars because our inspectors take boots, safety equipment, code books.

They have stuff that they need to carry, they can't walk or take the bus, and we need our customers are expecting us to be there to be available to do these inspections, to get construction finished, finalized, and make sure it's safe.

So with that and the emergency response, we feel these vehicles are important, and we would appreciate your support in approving and rejecting the BLA's recommendations.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

You want to go into item seven as well, and then we'll go to questions with Supervisor Walton.

Item number seven is uh a proposed fee ordinance.

So DBI did a fee study back in 2024.

Since the pandemic, demand for DBI permits and services went way down, revenue uh was way less than expenditure, and there was a significant structural deficit in the department.

The department was burning through reserves.

We did a fee study in 2024 that confirmed that and recommended that the department increase its fees to recover its costs rather than making a significant increase all at once.

The department has been phasing in these fee increases slowly over the past four years.

The increase proposed for fiscal year 27 is the last one to fully implement the fee study and get us to full cost recovery.

The last year and part and part of current year and part of fiscal year 25.

Uh demand has returned somewhat, it's very promising and hopeful.

Demand has been strong, revenues have been strong.

The original plan for the fiscal year 27 fee increase was approximately 15%.

However, due to the returning demand and the strong revenues that we're seeing this year and last, we only need an additional increase of approxim of 2% on average to get to full cost recovery.

We've worked with industry partners, we've worked with community organizations, and this and we've presented this fee increase to our code advisory committee and our building inspection commission, and all are in support.

This, of course, we try to be as responsible stewards as possible, keep fees as low as possible, but we only need another 2% to get there, and we feel like this we're in a great financial place.

We are now on solid footing and looking forward to the continued recovery of city construction.

Happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Channel.

Thank you for the presentation.

I just quickly, so the department's policy is to decide a car is outdated because of years and not mileage.

Correct.

Is that industry standard?

So city administrator tracks three things to determine if a vehicle is underutilized.

They measure number of miles driven, number of trips taken, and number of days used.

So all of our cars are not underutilized when looking at number of trips taken, but if an inspector's district is downtown, they're staying within a few mile radius of the parking garage.

So they're not driving very far.

The mileage remains low, but the cars are in regular use and they are needed to carry equipment from the building to the job sites.

And then my other question is just for my knowledge, does the planning department also have vehicles?

Planning department may have one vehicle, but I don't they don't have a fleet like DBI does.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um I am inclined, especially given what happened at civil service um commission yesterday.

Well, no, the Monday, I'm inclined to put the permit SF modernizations, which is 7.1, roughly 7.1 million dollars for 27, 26, 27, and then also about roughly 7.3 million dollars from seven 27, 28 on reserve, um budget committee reserve, just so that when you're ready with that contract, you come back, and then um to when you're ready to, or however way you spend it, not necessarily the contract itself, but just um being able to decide what you're what what direction you're gonna take for the next two fiscal years about permit SF.

Can you uh once more to kind of either you or maybe Director Kane wants to explain and walk us through?

I think last week we asked what is your like course of action um as a plan to address um be it open gov, um be any other software, like what is your like you know, plan to or what are the steps you're gonna be taking um in the next six months as the way to determine which direction you're gonna go to continue to marginize permitting process.

Thank you for the question.

I will speak to the uh budget first, and then we have a presentation uh that my colleagues will present.

So the budget and legislative analysts made a reserve recommendation to put project funds on reserve, and we're in support of that.

So we're in agreement with the budget and legislative analysts recommendation on putting the funds on reserve.

With the release condition being approval of a contract to do the work, no matter what technology it is, when when the board approves a contract, then the funds would be released.

So the way that technically how it works is I mean, I think that according to you last week is that you have enough right now to carry you through until September for the existing contract with open gov.

To September.

I mean, according to you last week, and what I am saying is that then we're putting the line item for permit SF for modernization on reserve for you to have to w the way that technically how it works is then you come back with a letter to release that funds because now you know what you're gonna do next, and then this committee will have a hearing upon your request to release the budget, and then the committee will then decide whether they release the funds or not.

Usually we do.

Um, but with the understanding, it's just the the caveat, it's really just for you to come back and to this body to report like what happened.

Um so that's what I am intend to do.

I intend to do that.

Understood.

And we were just hoping that that could coincide with the um contract hearing itself.

So take care of both.

If you approve the contract, then release the funds at the same time.

But however, however, you'd like to structure it, we I am seeing Director Kittler saying yes, we're gonna work this out.

We will work this out.

We appreciate you.

I think that we have an agreement with that, but Director Kitler.

Uh Sophia Gitler, budget director.

I don't have a whole lot to say, but yes, I would I would propose that I think we will introduce the hearing for the release of reserves to coincide with the hearing for the contract so that they move together.

Thank you.

Thank you, Director Kittler.

Thank you.

Um do you want to elaborate what your next steps are or what your plan is for open gov?

I'd like to turn it over to director Sarah or director of permit SF, Elizabeth Wadi.

Hi, thank you, Chair Chan.

Uh Liz Wadi, director of Permit SF.

Um, our plan in the meantime, um, again, we're supportive of putting that funding on reserve for that moment in time.

In the meantime, we're going to, we were asked by the Civil Service Commission to meet with local 21.

We've already kicked off that um first email with them.

Um we're hoping we can set up a meeting probably after the Memorial Day uh weekend to work with local 21.

So we're looking forward to seeing if we can find any common ground there and continue to maybe um do a better job clarifying the roles that we intend to have uh working on the product after its initial launch, which I think was sort of the crux of the conversation at civil service hearing.

Um separately, the Civil Service Commission uh executive secretary is looking for um probably a special hearing time.

They're trying to coordinate calendars so that we can come back ideally sometime before the 4th of July.

That was their their target time frame.

Um so we're working um full steam ahead right now with those deadlines in hand.

Um, and if all goes well at those hearings, then um based on calendars before the recess, we'll see how far we can get with the full board.

Um, and we anticipate we'll probably end up being back before the board to have that conversation of the funds on the reserve and the contract likely right after uh board recess.

Last week, thank you so much, Ms.

Wadi for being here.

Last week that I have the questions, though, specifically about the contract really is about plan B, meaning that you know, knowing that uh OpenGov um came in a space where it's really so sores.

Um clearly it came in also as a pilot with which expiring uh in September.

Are there ways that you are thinking about and how you're approaching it that allow yourself to have a plan B?

Meaning I I'm not necessarily saying clearly there's also an issue according to reporting that there's also feedback that is not that great for clarity, even though clearly they're lower uh in terms of uh during your bidding process, but that doesn't necessarily mean better.

Um so I do understand that approach, but do you have a plan B somewhere in between?

Meaning, you know, openGov as a as a vendor may not be the most ideal.

Um maybe there are other could be other options or options that are allowing you to take some of the goods and then work out the bad some other ways, but maybe not necessarily entirely with open gov.

Sure.

Um so we don't have a robust plan B worked out, because I think we're still really hopeful that our plan A will will move forward.

However, um we do have an option in our current pilot contract to extend for a year basically to basically keep the lights on for what we've already built, so we don't have to basically throw it away or turn it off to our customers, um, especially if there's only you know a month delay between when our first year contract ends of phase one and when the contract ideally moves forward.

So we are gonna work on parallel paths to just extend that so we can sort of keep the lights on and not waste the work that we've just spent a ton of time on.

Um so we are proceeding with that concurrently as a as a call it, you know, um, you know, plan B1, if you will.

Um concurrently, obviously, we, you know, our goal was to go full steam ahead with um building out new record types um and introducing new agencies.

We need to obviously wait for the funding before we can do that.

So we do have some some urgency that we would like to move forward so we can loop in other city agencies that are wanting to be on the same unified platform.

Um I think to your question of like other vendor options was kind of what I was I was hearing of like, do we have options for other vendors?

We do not right now have options to just wholesale pivot and go with a different vendor.

We would need to kick off a whole new process and open it back up on the market if we were to go with an entirely different vendor.

So that type of a backup plan is not one that we have spent invested any time in.

But our backup backup plan, if after you know, the year of um of just sort of keeping the lights on, we would not be able to build anything new.

So we would not be delivering any new improvements for our customers.

Um, what I'm sensitive about about waiting too long on what we're doing here is one of my biggest concerns is the hardest part of a technology transformation is being in bifurcated systems.

So our staff right now at planning, for example, we are on Xela, we're on PTS, we are using a Blue Beam software tool, we are using different electronic document management systems.

Our staff have to look in our property information map, all to do every single simple permit review.

Our goal is to be able to get into one source of truth so that so that our planners aren't needing to do hard copy paper, Excela to execute and planning system, PTS and DBIs, and we can all be in one system.

So the sooner we can get in one system of record that holds sort of all truths about all projects, the easier it's gonna be on our staff.

And so I'm really conscientious about not having us sit in multiple systems.

Um, that is one of the guiding principles of this project.

Um, one of the things we're doing as part of phase one right now, we will get the fire department, for example, entirely off of their legacy system so that their staff is entirely in open gov.

Similarly, with a subset of the building department with the inspectors that are focused in the trades, so the electrical, the plumbing, et cetera.

Um, those specialized building inspectors by the end of the first phase will be um entirely working on new permits in open gov.

And we've heard that feedback from staff that that is really important to them, that it's hard being in two systems.

So, anyhow, I just say that for some context of when we're talking about our backup plans, um, that is something I'm really sensitive to in thinking about what we do and how long does it take to pivot and make decisions about what our backup plan is.

So, yeah, but I think that additionally, what we're looking for at this actually two flags from the conversation based on from last week.

I think the first flag is that then how do we actually make sure that there are checks?

And clearly it's been through the DBI department as a department has been through so much, and that's in including the allegation of corruption.

So then what the first flag is like, how do we actually make sure that we can check the integrity of the work?

Absolutely, the approval process, uh, the integrity of like inspection, and want to make sure and understand the system actually has that in place while you consolidating and centralizing a data system.

And then I think that the second part is then how do you actually show a matrix of success?

How do you actually measure to say, well, currently the system as it goes, did these different categories of permits, it would take this many days to wait time for submission of applications and the review time and then approval time, and then similarly for those three time period, submission waiting and approval, or even appeal, however way, or discussion for like, hey, you know, like we need more information.

For example, I don't know, like the place that the ex the fire exit.

We understand we need to understand what is your capacity, where are you placing placing the fire exit?

If those conversations occur, cannot, I assume cannot occur entirely online.

So, what does that look like by comparison in terms of that process of time reduction?

Yes, to those two two questions.

Thank you.

Those are both great questions, and those are both both very important to the project.

On your first question, um, I was actually at the building inspection commission this morning giving them an update, and one of the um pieces that I was focused on was talking to them around what we'll all call like compliance related issues, right?

How do we ensure that the new system, to your point, insurance that um sort of there is not the ability for people to easily modify um records in a nefarious way?

Um, and um a member of the public who shows up every week has really been hammering home on will the system do X, Y, and Z.

And we went through really all of those points, with the punchline being um the system either currently does it or it's in flight to align with one the relevant permit where that makes sense to need that feature as aligned.

And so we are really focused on that.

My goal was the beginning of phase two.

Like that is part one of our next round of kick-off when we get into larger projects.

So the compliance issues is absolutely top of mind.

It is a top priority of the product.

It is the thing that is most meaningful to me on this project.

Just for context, I've worked extensively with President Mandelman and Supervisor Melgar on the ECC legislation and other pieces of legislation that we've had to ensure that the planning department, so you know, if there's a bad actor who's lying on their applications in the planning department, that counts for sort of the three strikes on the ECC, making sure that as part of being a merged agency.

Right now, the rules don't cross over, and it's really important to us as we're merging agencies that those rules, anyone who is a bad actor in either of our agencies needs to be held accountable in the same way.

We need our assistant our system to have a click-based audit trail, reporting, ensuring that you can't modify records, like all of those things are absolutely top of the list, and we're real, we have extreme confidence in where that's going.

To your second question around metrics, I actually have a great slide in the presentation.

If we can show it of the metrics, we heard your question last week on I want to understand metrics, and so I've got some pulled together here.

If we can turn to the slide, if that's if we're I also want to make sure I own a flag for you that supervisors out or has questions.

We'll go to that slide and then we'll go to your question.

Here we go.

So I'll just talk on these briefly.

Oops, one too much too far.

Here we go.

Um I have two slides talking about metrics that I'll just jump into here for you.

Um, first up, we already do have performance metrics in play as it relates to permit SF and the two agencies.

So, right now, planning applications, because again, these are still very separate processes, and so we want to talk about them a little bit differently.

Our target is 90 days, in-house building permits, 60 days, over the counter two days.

You'll see on the bottom row our performance.

Uh, other than over the counter permits, we're not where we need to be.

Um, and so I say that with a little bit of a pause, and I'll come back to that in a moment.

Um, knowing that we're not where we want to be, and knowing that that journey of where we want to be includes components of the permitting process that are not exclusively in our control.

So, for example, if one of our uh plan checkers at DBI asks for revisions, the architect or the homeowner, they could take anywhere from two days to respond to that comment to seven months to respond to that comment.

And that affects the overall beginning to end.

Our system right now isn't really uh sophisticated enough to capture all of those nuances of is it balls in our court, is the ball in the sponsors court.

So, although our numbers are off, there's also I think that important context that the system doesn't give us nuance.

So, what we did actually at the beginning of Permit SF, and what this slide shows, the numbers on the left-hand side here, about a year ago in Permit SF, unrelated to technology, we said it is imperative that all agencies act together, and we come up with a standard performance metric for customers so that customers know what they should expect in terms of a turnaround time from the city, and it needs to be the same across agencies because it wasn't prior to a year ago.

So, these a year ago were reach goals.

Candidly, there was a lot of concern and opposition from different agency leaderships of having these numbers on the left-hand side.

These numbers are 21 days for completeness, which is the first response from the city of is your application complete?

Plan review at 30 days, that's the planners and the plan checkers at DBI, and then 14 days is every time we ask for changes.

How long does it take for us to review those changes at 14 days?

These were reach goals.

We were not hitting these goals a year ago.

The middle column here on current is we can do hard things.

We are actually beating our performance targets that we set a year ago by working together, making other process improvements.

There's been a lot of collaboration at a leadership level across all agencies.

But to your question earlier of what is the metric of success moving forward as a byproduct of this new product, the column on the right hand side is where we feel we need to be to serve our citizens the way they deserve.

And where other jurisdictions perform.

So a little bit of parity around what best practices are in permitting agencies.

Actually, just received a comment last week where there was frustration around completeness taking the amount of time even it takes at average a median of 14 days.

And so these are the numbers of basically a one-week turnaround for completeness plan review and two days at resubmission is what, again, very much a reach goal right now, but one that I have confidence that by the end of this project that we will be able to deliver for customers.

So, anyhow, I wanted to highlight um those metrics for you right now to respond to your second question.

Thank you.

Supervisor Souter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, as it relates to the kind of this idea of what our, you know, what plan B is, um, in the absence of like another option, it seems like the current legacy system becomes plan B.

Um, can you just paint a picture for me of like the current legacy system, how it's being held together, what that costs, um, what its shortcomings and shortfalls are?

Sure, I can hit a couple of those questions more on the usability side.

I might need to turn it over to Alex on the on the cost to maintain question.

Um, the current legacy system uh is a um it's doing the job, but I say it's being held together with duct tape.

If you walk away from your computer for about 10 minutes, it freezes and you have to control alt delete, force quit your computer.

So as you can imagine, um, all of our our permitting staff, you're engaging with the customers, you're having a conversation, your system's open, you're constantly a state of having to restart your computer and like force quit to restart it.

So, like as an anecdote, you have to use F keys to execute queries.

Uh, if you double click in a field, it overrides the information that is in a field.

Um, this is not a system that's that's best in class.

Um, our our staff have been maintaining it and working effortlessly to keep it open because it's the system that we're using right now, but it is not user-friendly.

Um it's a very difficult UX UI interface for staff to use.

It's very antiquated, it's not web-based.

Um, this was actually a big issue during COVID.

Um our staff didn't have VPNs when we went into COVID.

Um, it's not a web-based system.

It was really hard for us to migrate when COVID hit to working from home.

Um, and so I do really think a lot about this project as for that next disaster.

Knock on what heaven forbid we have one, but we know we need to be prepared for one.

We are all first responders at the building and planning department.

Um, so anyhow, the system in terms of its usability is not a great backup.

Does it currently track projects?

Yes.

Can we issue permits and collect fees?

Yes.

Um, but it is not a system deserving of the you know technology capital of the world of San Francisco.

This is not what our our citizens need.

You can't transact with it in a web-based manner.

So our applicants can't submit easily directly through that interface.

There's a lot of behind-the-scenes patchworks for our current systems.

So it works.

Um, and maybe I'll turn it over to Alex who might know what the cost is to maintain.

Do you have that number?

No.

Okay, we can get back to you on it.

Approximately when did the that system come into play?

I'm sorry, say that.

When did the system start?

I mean, when you know, um, I just hit my 20 years with the city and it was there when I started.

Um, and I don't think it was new.

So, um, and uh related to the suggestion to put the money on reserve, um, I just want to check in on that.

I mean, is this something that's going to slow down uh implementation of additional permits?

Because I mean, last week from our conversation, we expressed frustration of this not moving more quickly and of some of the permit types and categories that were supposed to be online uh in the new system by now and they're not there yet.

Uh but I want to make sure that if we're putting money on reserve, we don't further slow it down, which is what our frustration is in the first place.

So long as the money that's being on reserved is concurrently with the contract hearing, it won't slow us down at all.

Okay.

Thank you.

And your contract is not out of civil service commission, correct?

Correct.

Precisely.

Thank you.

Um great.

And uh with that, I don't see any other.

Sorry, go ahead, Alex.

Can we can I continue with the remaining policy recommendations for DBI?

Uh sure, yes, please.

So there are two policy recommendations for DBI that we're not in agreement with.

Uh I'm sorry, three.

One is an 0922 to 0923 manager position.

This has already been TX'd and hired, and the employees currently, my apologies.

Temporary exchange.

So the employee is currently working as a civil service manager to today on the budgeted manager one position.

The position in question is this yellow highlight.

There are three divisions in DBI currently permit services, inspection services, admin services.

Each group has a large group of permit technicians with who and are led by a manager.

The managers for permit services and administrative services are manager twos, and so this is uh an equity issue.

The manager uh two for inspection services currently supervises 38 total staff.

So manager two is the appropriate class, DHR recognized that they supported it, they um approved hiring a manager two on this budgeted position, and now we just want to align the budget with the reality of our actual employee job class.

The next policy recommendation is to eliminate the department head 0963 position in year two of the budget, and we just feel that that's premature.

So we there is a lot to be determined with this merge with charter reform, with the ballot measure.

We don't know exactly what is coming.

So we're happy to reassess next year, but it is very unlikely that the position would go away even if the departments merge and there was only one department head.

The department is required by state law to have a building official.

So regardless of whether it's a department head or not, that position is likely may transform into a building official position.

Uh we just don't know now.

It's premature, and that position should stay until we know more next year.

The last recommendation is a ninety-nine seventy-six temporary technology expert one for the permit SF project.

So regardless of what technology is chosen, what permit system is chosen, what the timeline is, there is a lot of work to be done to document processes to clean up data, to clean up things from the old system, to prepare for the new system, to be an architect of new processes.

And so this is a temporary position, it does not last forever, and we need it to help inventory what we have, find out what improvements are possible, and implement those over the next few years.

And those are all the DBI recommendations and looking forward to also discussing the planning ones after the BLA report on those.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, our recommendations for the Department of City Planning start on page 31 of our report.

Um our understanding is uh that the department disagrees with recommendations one, two, three, and five under fiscal recommendations.

Um the our understanding is the primary disagreement with one, two, and three, is that uh the department agrees to make those one time but not ongoing, and we recommend ongoing, and we base that on the historical expenditures for those accounts.

Um, and then um recommendation five uh is a deputy director three position.

We're recommending eliminating that vacant position.

Uh the department we know the department does not have a hiring plan for that position.

Um, and we we don't it's our understanding the department doesn't have an intent to fill it at the current time, and it may not no longer be necessary if building inspection and city planning merge.

Um we were subsequently told that um by department staff that um the mayor's budget office made additional changes to the department's proposed budget, including deletion of this vacancy, but we haven't received any information independently of the department staff telling us that.

Um we've not received um any list of technical adjustments from mayor's budget office as of yet.

So we base our recommendations on what's actually been proposed, which was the proposed budget as of May 1st.

In addition to the fiscal recommendations, we have two policy recommendations that the department disagrees with.

The first is um we consider approval of a proposed new 1824 administrative analyst position to serve as a strategic program lead for the enterprise addressing system to be a policy matter for the Board of Subvisors.

This is this role as our understanding would involve standardizing the system of identifying buildings and lots in the city and is related to the permit SF initiative.

However, uh we note that the department has said that the work associated with this position is necessary of regardless of the software that is used.

And the position is being proposed as an interim exception, so it would start uh on July 1st, and most uh position new positions start October 1st.

Um we also note that um in addition to this position, um, the department's also proposing a 1054 IS business analyst, um, which is the next recommendation, recommendation number eight.

Um, and funding for a temporary 9976 technology expert position, which was just spoken to a moment ago under DBI.

And finally, we want to just highlight uh reserve recommendation that we have uh on page 35 of a report that's recommendation number nine, uh, to place in the first year 4,783,333, and in the second year, 7,383,750.

Um the first year that would be eight months for the permit assessment initiative on to budget and committee budget and finance committee reserve to be released at the time the contract is approved by the board of supervisors, uh, and in the second year that would be the full amount budgeted for the second year.

Um we haven't seen a detailed breakdown um for this portion of the budget.

Um, and so we do consider this a policy reserve putting placing those monies on reserve to be a policy matter.

We're available for any questions on any of these matters.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And before you proceed, though, I'm sorry, I don't think that to your presentation today.

Do we have them?

Because it's different from last week.

Yes, we have a new presentation to address some of the uh requests you had made in the first hearing.

I don't know if we have them electronically, nor hard comp for sure.

We don't have car copies, I think.

Sure.

I I had sent that to Francis yesterday evening.

Did you send it to the clerk?

Uh no, I did not send it to the clerk.

However, we have it here on USB and can pull it up for the yeah.

Could you please send it to the clerk right now?

We need a copy, like of your presentation today.

Um, but yeah, go ahead and pull pull your presentation.

Bye.

Yes.

Okay.

Um, so responding to the policy recommendations for planning, there is let's see.

Well, all the recommendations.

Recommendations one through three, the BLA recommendations, that is a very minimal amount.

Normally we would have worked this out.

Apologies for bringing such a small amount to you.

However, we will note that one of the proposed technical adjustments that was made after the May 1st mayor's budget presentation is uh increase and increase of attrition by 5.3 million dollars in fiscal year 28.

That is a very significant amount and may create significant operational challenges in year one.

Given that and the merge and all the uncertainty that comes along with it, we are hoping to address year one next year.

Next year is going to be a completely clean clean slate budget.

DBI and planning departments may not even exist at that time.

So we hope that those recommendations one through three can be held off for now.

We agree with the BLA that they can be taken in year one, but year two, please hold for now.

Recommendation number five, as Mr.

Gonshire mentioned, this one is purely technical.

The intention is to delete the position.

Hopefully, mayor's office controller's office can confirm to the BLA now.

But uh it would be administratively easier for the department if it was left as is as a technical adjustment rather than a uh BLA recommendation.

Then it would have to be added in, take it back out.

There are accounting technical implications next year.

So if nothing is done, if the recommendation is rejected, the position still goes away.

And that remains the intent.

On the policy recommendations, there are two for planning that DBI disagrees with.

The 1824 for the enterprise addressing system, citywide addressing is a big mess, has been an issue for a long time.

It is a multi-departmental affair.

There are different systems that different departments use to assign different addresses in different ways.

The data doesn't agree with each other.

It creates a lot of confusion, and for more than just permitting for day-to-day business of many departments, PUC, DPW, FIRE, DBI, we need to streamline addressing.

There's been a citywide task force that's been convened, and I think they have come up with a series of recommendations and are ready to start making policy changes.

So this 1824 is really needed regardless of what happens with the permit system.

Addressing is its own issue, and we need this position to fix that.

And we would much rather hire a city employee than contract these services out for likely more money.

Lastly, a 1054 for permit SF substitution is requested in planning.

This business analyst, much like the 9976, is needed to do preparatory work and implementation work for new permit system.

Permit system is permit SF is more than just a new system.

It is all of the business practices, business processes that many departments use.

It's how departments talk to each other and collaborate.

And there is so much work to do on that front that regardless of the current permit system replacement contract in front of us, there is a seemingly infinite amount of prep work, implementation work, documentation work to do.

And again, we are committed to hiring city staff to do this work rather than contracting out and hiring a consultant to tell us what we feel we can figure out ourselves.

So we'd appreciate your support on rejecting these specific recommendations.

The other ones were in full agreement with the BLA.

And once again, thank you for your cooperation.

Thank you.

Um I would like to go to public comments on the item.

Sorry.

Would you like now to go with the new presentation?

I thought you did the item seven.

Oh, um.

Sorry, I meant the presentation for uh to address your your open gov and permit SF questions from the first hearing.

We have a presentation for that.

Chair Chan, committee members, um, we apologize the presentation did not go to the clerk.

Um we are having copies printed now to bring to you, and we'll make sure that gets to the clerk.

I think we've addressed most of your questions verbally and brought up some slides as we've been talking.

So I don't know that it's necessary for us to run through the presentation, but we're happy to do that if you would direct us to.

Thank you.

I think let's go to public comments on item seven.

And uh I know I did not pre- I previously state it, but I wonder, Mr.

Clerk, if I may state to limit public comments to one minute.

Um Madam Chair, when we did take a public comment earlier, it was under uh two minutes, so um so we cannot retroactively to say limit public comments from one minute from that is correct, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

I thought that, and uh so let's go to public comment on this item.

Uh yes, we're now opening public comment on this item number seven.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this ordinance, uh madam chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move item seven, the building permits fees adjustments to full board with recommendation.

Second, second by vice chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey to refer of the ordinance and item number seven to the full board.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member Sauter.

Walton, I, Member Chen, Chen, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

Colleagues, I think um, I want to see if we could have a brief discussion here right now for the DBI, the department uh of building inspections and planning department, because you know it's the first time they're doing this in combination together as two city departments joining into one.

It seems to me though, there's still I think that that both the permit SF as a contract, not as a system.

I think that it's an initiative that the mayor has put forward that I think we all conceptually support.

I think that it seems to me that the budget itself in question is really uh tied to the contract that it's gonna again come before us um later um this summer, which is really actually post-budget.

Um, it's the reason why I concur with the budget and legislative analysts recommendation to put the um budget on reserve to allow again you know more conversation down the roll, um, which with what Maswadi has mentioned, you know.

I think they're not it sounds like they're having really tick on the idea of plan B yet, which we still and if they were to the existing contract with open government expiring in September has an option to extend for one more year.

So that's one thought.

Second is that uh staffing wise that you can see both in DBI and planning, somewhat involved with permit SF and even including the positions that while now they say eliminated because you know, again, potential merger.

So staffing wise, I think I'm also inclined in terms of these positions.

I'm also inclined to put those dollars on reserve.

They're not quite higher, they're vacant, they're waiting for potential merging of the departments, but also permit SF.

Last but not least is the replacements being basically buying new cars for new cars for the department.

Not really inclined at the moment.

Um I think that city administrator Carmen Shu is in the process of doing a few things.

That's including fleet management, so technically is really under the city administrator's office at jurisdiction uh conversation about inventory management and so much more.

I'm not inclined to support buying new vehicles uh for city department in the face of budget deficits.

So I'm open for conversation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

So thank you, Chair Chan.

I am persuaded that in the midst of change, we should be sensitive to doing things that are going to frustrate that or throw a wrench into the system.

I think what I heard, especially around um staffing, is a strong preference to not have outside folks.

I've been through in other city agencies.

Sometimes I think there's a learning curve when whenever there's an outside consultant who's brought in that it doesn't have the institutional knowledge of people within who are even higher hired or promoted within the system.

Could I just clarity?

Is what we're contemplating here something that is workable within the change?

Both permit SF, the change that we're undertaking there and the merger of the department.

The new are the I want to better understand your question.

Um, I guess what I'm looking at is the policy recommendations on the positions, especially.

If we were to side with you over the budget legislative analyst, is that am I hearing that that is something that's essential to the success of the merger and I believe so?

The merger and permit SF.

So this will help us better coordinate with other city departments, with our stakeholders to document our processes, see where there is room for improvement, and just continue on the trajectory that we've been in on.

So we have shown that we've made a lot of progress so far.

We are running out of low-hanging fruit to continue to improve, and now we're really getting down into the weeds of very complicated, messy technical processes and issues, and we need additional staff to help navigate that.

Any other thoughts?

Um I am inclined again, as I indicated, I'm inclined to for the budget and legislative analyst recommendation on the contract as put on reserve, and I am also inclined to put the staffing dollars, the the personnel recommendation for elimination instead of eliminating the dollars all together like the positions all together.

I am inclined.

Go ahead.

How about the 9976 position funding on reserve?

Because that's the one that's most closely tied with the new system, but the 1824 for enterprise addressing system, that one is a separate issue, a separate project program to fix addressing in general.

That's building numbers, that's blocking lots, that's lot splits, that's working with assessor, tax collector, DPW, PUC FIRE, all of that.

That is an important issue, a safety issue.

Some of those other departments like PUC and FIRE, they consider they have unique identifiers for certain areas like a field in Golden Gate Park that doesn't have building numbers on it, so it's not in DBI system, but it needs to be accounted for somehow.

So the addressing work is separate from the new permit system.

So how about the 9976 on reserve?

Permit SF on reserve.

Okay.

SF staffing on reserve.

Rest of the go, no cars.

How about the how about the cars?

We do the cars this year.

Again, we um have been losing, we've lost 15 cars since the pandemic.

We haven't replaced any.

DBI used to replace cars every year.

We're finally restarting that.

Our cars are we have the cars are replacing are 20 years old.

Yeah, but your cars also have low mileage.

But it's so important for Walton.

Thank you, Church.

I mean, your response has to be better than we just replace them every year.

Like they're low mileage.

Um I would love to see something in front of me that says industry standard is to replace cars as often as you are stating when the mileage is very low.

That that is just that's that's problem problematic for me because just because a car has been around for a while and the mileage is low when you talk about wear and tear, it typically is an indicator that the car is still ready for performance.

And we are what seven by seven?

Sure.

Uh one other factor to point out on the slide that I had previously showed.

One of the two cars has already incurred over ten thousand dollars of repair and maintenance cost over the past five years.

Cars only cost more to repair as time goes on.

Is that user error, though, or is that the actual vehicle?

No, those are um, those are just maintenance, repair, and maintenance failure, mechanical failure, electric failure.

So these cars have cost the department a significant amount of money, continue to cost money.

Um, in general, these new electric cars have shown to have lower maintenance costs, and we feel that again it they're funded by user fees.

We've already built these into the fee study, they're assumed paid for in there.

So the funding is covered, it's not general fund.

Um, and we we would appreciate support.

Thank you.

Just the last thing I'll say because this is not the only non-general fund item that will be addressed.

Uh departments have been asked to tighten their belts and unfortunately make some decisions that are not just general fund during this budget process because everybody is is being asked to feel some of the pain.

And this is not going to stop the department from operating and being able to do its job if we were to go in that direction and not approve the vehicles.

So that's just my statement.

So I I again I don't think that we have to decide actually in reality.

Um, this this could be actually decided in June.

Um, and so um I think that what I will suggest for now is that we can pin that one for now.

You have to come back, anyways.

True be told, not for your entire budget.

You have to probably come back for your contract anyways, and for this further discussion, your vehicle will be discussed in June as you know for the entire budget.

Um, and plus by then city administrator, she will have to return before us who really talk about her flea management overall.

Um, this could be part of that conversation.

For now, we can pin that thoughts, and for now, we could have a further conversation whether we want to actually accept the budget and legislative analyst recommendation, or do we actually allow it to again also put on reserve to for you to return um when you're ready to buy a new car?

Um, and so with that, thank you.

We appreciate you.

Um, you did you you hustle today and you did your best.

Thank you.

Um so with that, we will go to um the next.

My apologies, I really needed my glasses.

The next department is um PUC.

And at the and um let's also call items eight through eleven together, please.

Yes, item numbers eight through eleven.

Uh item number eight.

Is the public utilities commission capital projects budget and supplemental appropriation ordinance as of May 1st, 2026 for fiscal years 2026 to 2027 and 2027 to 2028?

Item numbers nine through eleven are ordinances authoring, uh sorry, authorizing the issuance and sale of tax exempt or taxable bonds and other forms of indebtedness by the public until these commission to finance the cost of various capital improvements pursuant to amendments to the charter of the city and county enacted by the voters, declaring the official intent of the commission to reimburse itself with one or more issues of tax exempt or taxable bonds or other forms of indebtedness and ratifying previous actions taken in connection therewith.

Item number nine issue issues power revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 138.1 million to finance the costs of various capital projects benefiting the power enterprise enacted by the voters on June 5th, 2018 as proposition A, issuing the authorizing the issuance of power revenue refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding power enterprise commercial paper.

Item number 10 issues wastewater revenue bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 1.1 billion to finance the cost of various capital wastewater projects benefiting the wastewater enterprise enacted by the voters on November 5th, 2020, sorry, 2002, has proposition E, authorizing the issuance of wastewater revenue refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding wastewater enterprise commercial paper, and item number 11 issues water revenue bonds and an aggregate principal amount not to exceed approximately 570.5 million to finance the costs of various capital water and hetchy water projects benefiting the water enterprise enacted by the voters on November 5th, 2002 as proposition E, authorizing the issuance of water revenue refunding bonds and the retirement of outstanding water enterprise commercial paper.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And can we start with items eight through eleven first?

Sure.

Um good afternoon, supervisors.

Anna Dooning, budget director for the SFPUCE.

So items eight through eleven, we did introduce last week when we talked about both our operating budget and our capital budget.

These items have to do with our capital budget.

One item is the actual two-year capital budget, which is funded in part from a revenue transfer from our operating budget, and secondarily by debt proceeds.

The other items are your authorization to issue debt to finance the capital in the two-year capital budget.

Um I did not prepare an additional presentation in the interest of time.

So I think the BLA can speak to their report, and we can answer any other questions about those items.

Madam Chair Dan Gonscher with the budget's legislative analysts office.

Items eight through eleven, those are uh file twenty-six seven four is an ordinance appropriating or reappropriating one, one hundred fifty-eight million six hundred and eleven thousand and sixty dollars in fiscal year twenty six-27, and one, three hundred million, two four hundred eleven thousand three hundred seventy-four dollars in fiscal year twenty seven twenty-eight for capital project spending.

The ordinance places eight hundred seventy-five million three hundred thirty seven hundred thirty one thousand two hundred eighty dollars in fiscal year twenty six-27 and nine hundred and ninety-eight million six hundred and seventy-eight thousand eight hundred and forty one dollars in fiscal year twenty seven twenty-eight on controls of appropriation reserve pending controller certification of the availability of funds.

File twenty six oh four seventy-five is an ordinance authorizing an amount of about approximately 138 million in power revenue bonds.

File twenty-six oh four seven six is an ordinance authorizing about one point one billion in wastewater revenue bonds, and file twenty-six-04 seven seven is an ordinance authorizing approximately five hundred and seventy million, five hundred and seventy point five million in water revenue bonds.

The proposed ordinance pertain to the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission two-year capital budget for the water, wastewater, power, and clean power SF divisions.

The sources and uses uh of these would be are shown uh in exhibits starting on page six of our report.

The average annual debt service for the proposed one point nine billion in water, wastewater and power bonds over 30 years is approximately 139.2 million or 4.2 billion in total debt service, excluding any capitalized interest for interim financing.

Actual debt service costs may be lowered due to bond refunding and access to state and federal lending.

We note that the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission projects that each division will have sufficient net revenues and unrestricted fund balance to maintain debt service coverage ratios in compliance with its financial policies.

We do have a policy consideration in our report that while current adopted water and wastewater rates do not exceed the public utility commission's affordability targets.

Water and sewer bills are projected to exceed affordability targets beginning in fiscal year 23, sorry, in fiscal year 2033-34 and remain above target rates until fiscal year 2044-45.

We do recommend approving files 26-0475, 26-0476, and 26-0477 for power wastewater and water revenue bond authority authorizations, and file 26 0474, the appropriation ordinance pertaining to the public utilities commission to your capital budget.

We also recommend that the board request a report from the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission regarding strategies and future plans to a meet affordability targets for water and sewer bills and b establish affordability targets for HECH Hetchy and Clean Power SF bills were available for any questions on this matter.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Do you want to respond uh quickly about sort of the potential discrepancy or a gap, I should say a gap uh for the affordability rate by the time you see 2033?

Sure.

So the SFPUC is one of the only utilities, certainly in Northern California and potentially in the nation that has its own self-imposed commission adopted affordability policy for our water and sewer bill.

So what that means is that we set a target for how much of a household income the water and sewer bill should make up.

Right now, in the two-year capital budget in front of you, we are well below that target.

However, we do 10, 20, even 30 years of capital planning across all of our enterprises.

And over the next 10 or 20 years, we come very close to just exceeding that target.

And that's what's what's currently planned in terms of what we know we need to invest in our capital systems.

So by 2033, at this moment, it looks like we would just exceed that target.

However, I will say if you are in one of our discount programs for low-income customers, you are still under our affordability target.

So what that means is that over the next several years, we have some time to look ahead and plan how we're going to continue prioritizing to the best extent possible, taking advantage of low-cost grants and loans, refinancing our debt as much as possible to try to bring costs down and continue meeting our own affordability targets to our customers.

It's a huge priority for us and something we're very focused on.

Thank you.

And colleagues, here I I want to continue to recommend this that knowing that this is the case, I really wanted to recommend for SFUC SA return every two years for the budget is to present to this body that very report along with your budget.

Um that is recommended by the budget and legislative analysts about um the strategies and your plan to meet the affordability target and just just generally speaking, like just kind of make sure that is from now on for knowing that you know till 2033 that is a possibility.

So I hope that every two years when as a PUC come back to this body, it should have a report about affordability targets that comes with the enterprise agency report.

So thank you with that.

I don't see any name on the roster.

We will go to public comments on items eight through 11.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for items eight through eleven.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee uh regarding the PUC's uh capital projects appropriation ordinance and this issue within some bonds, um madam chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public commons, public comment is now close.

Um colleagues, I um again I think that um we will make the motion to approve items um nine through eleven, and then sorry, my apologies.

Is the recommendation to file the appropriation ordinance or are we actually moving all files to full board recommendation?

Uh for items eight through eleven, we can act on them uh to forward to the full board uh on June 2nd.

Understood.

Sorry, my c my apologies, colleagues.

I would like to make the motion to move items to full board with recommendation.

Second by Vice Chair Dorsey, a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, second above vice chair Dorsey to refer all four ordinances to the full board recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton.

Aye.

Member Chen, Chen, I chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, aye.

We have five eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And please go ahead.

Let's I think that I will have the budget and legislative analysts kind of go through, and then maybe SFPs can respond to the recommendation.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Um I will speak to our recommendations for the public utilities bureau as well as the wastewater enterprise, and then I'll have my colleague Alex The Bodo speak to Hetchechi Water and Power and the Water Enterprise.

So it's our understanding that on the Bureau list of recommendations that the department disagrees with number six and number eight on page 60 of our report under fiscal recommendations.

Recommendation number six PUB-6 is a manager six position.

We're recommending deleting this 0941 manager 6.

It has been big vacant since June of 2024, and the department has indicated that it's um there's doesn't seem to be an active hiring process in place.

We also noted that the division has four vacancies in this job classification, two of which have been vacant for at least two years.

We also note for for this position as well as the next recommendation I'll refer to, and actually kind of across the board in terms of vacancies.

That overall the department has 1800 about 1800 FTEs.

They have the department has about 430 vacancies overall, and in the proposed budget, there's about 113 proposed upward substitutions, of which we're only making recommendations on three of those 113.

So we do feel like our cuts are just a tiny fraction of the the actual even vacancies in the department.

The other recommendation uh under Bureau's uh for fiscal recommendations is number eight, PUB-8.

This is also a manager six.

This manager six has been vacant since March of 2023, and again, the division the division has four vacancies in this job classification, two of which have been vacant for at least two years.

And then we move to the policy recommendations under the bureaus.

We have um 14, so recommendation PUB-11 on page 61 and 62 of our report shows uh that the bureaus have 14 remaining vacant manager positions, um excluding the two or that are mentioned in the fiscal recommendations.

Um those are listed on page 62 of our report.

Um they have various length of of vacancies, but the oldest three of the 14 on this list, I will just mention there's an uh nine two two manager one that's been vacant since October 2023, an 0923 manager two that's been vacant since July 2024, and an 0931 manager 3 that's been vacant since also been vacant since July 2024.

I will now speak to our recommendations on the wastewater enterprise, and um those recommendations start on page 69 of our report.

Our understanding is we have full agreement on the fiscal recommendations for the wastewater enterprise, but that we have a disagreement on our policy recommendation uh under the wastewater enterprise, and um, so that is recommendation WWE-7.

Um this is three vacant 0900 positions, two 0933 manager fives, one 0932 manager 4.

Um it's our understanding that these positions have been vacant uh became vacant in 2025, one in August, one in February, one in June, all of last year.

Um the we do consider this to be a policy matter for the board.

Uh we do note that um there are 146 other vacant positions in this enterprise in the wastewater enterprise of these 146, 26 are being proposed as upward substitutions, which we're not recommending against.

And as we do with many of our recommendations, we have noted that while management positions do play an important role in many, many ways, that the growth of management positions far has outstripped non-management positions over the last five years, about 20% to 2%.

And so we do consider this to be a policy matter for the board.

And now I'm going to hand over to Alex the Bodo to speak to the Hachi Water and Power and the water enterprises.

Good afternoon.

This is Alex Thibodeau with the Board of Super, the Budget Legislative Analyst Office.

Starting off with Hetch Hechi Water and Power, we have five agreements or five recommendations with agreement, and these start on page 64 of our report.

Four of our recommendations, we do not have agreement with the department, and we also have four policy recommendations.

Starting off with HECH Hetchy Water Power 2.

This is a recommendation to downward substitute 1093 vacant manager 5 to an 0931 manager 3.

The department maintains that the manager 5 classification for this position is necessary to provide a competitive salary for a historically hard to fill position.

This position leads the Power Enterprises Power Supply and Origination Team, and it was vacated in November of 2025.

The position oversees the planning and operations of clean power and Hetchy Powers electricity supplies and ensures compliance with regulatory requirements.

And it is our understanding that the duties and the scope of this position are in alignment with an 0931 manager 3 position or perhaps an 0932 manager 4 classification and that the intent to classify based on preferred compensation is outside of typical civil service appointment protocol.

This is also a position, excuse me, MBO as an aside, denied the department's request to upward substitute a different manager in clean power from a manager three to a manager 5.

And this is a team that works closely with origination and power supply and downward substituting this position to a manager 3, we believe would right size the classification to that of other similar teams in the power enterprise.

Moving on to recommendation HH4.

This is a recommendation to reduce the number of new skidio drone and docking systems from two to one in Hetchy Power.

And while the department agrees with the reduction in the quantity of drones, the department argues that it has conducted a technical audit that reflects that the true cost of a schedule drone is 400,000 instead of 200,000.

We requested that the department provide written documentation of this technical audit or other sort of supporting materials supporting this increase in cost from the original vendor quote.

This was not provided to us in the course of our analysis.

The vendor quote that we did receive, which is the original quote, calculates the cost of one drone at approximately 203,000.

And this is inclusive of all hardware software and cloud services.

We also maintain that if there are discrepancies to costs, it is highly likely that the enterprise's capital outlay budget could absorb them as the account is currently unspent by 7.4 million or 74% as of May 1st and was reduced by just 750,000 in the mayor's proposed budget for the upcoming year.

The third recommendation of disagreement is HH8, and this is a recommendation to deny one replacement crew cab uh 4x4 work truck vehicle for HECHE water.

The department argues that this vehicle is at the end of its useful life.

The existing Ford F 250 vehicle is a 2014 model with 160,000 miles.

However, this vehicle is proposed as a medium priority vehicle in the proposed budget, and the department has not indicated that maintenance is costly or that the existing vehicle is unserviceable.

Moving on to our policy recommendations, uh we have HH 10 and HH 11.

These are policy considerations to deny to new FTE positions within HECHI water that are temporary to permanent conversions.

This is one 7344 Carpenter and 17318 electronic maintenance technician.

HECHIWATER doesn't have vacant positions available in either classification, and the department reports that the workload for these positions is permanent and ongoing.

We had identified these as policy considerations as they are temporary to permanent conversions, but the decision to retain these two positions is a policy matter for the board.

Moving on to HH 12, this is a policy consideration to deny a proposed upward substitution of one 7488 power generation supervisor to one 0931 manager 3.

This position is going to lead the power department, excuse me, the power enterprises electrical distribution center, which is expected to require new assets with critical distribution lines in fiscal year 26-27.

This position supervises, hires, and trains operation center staff, and outlines the procedures, rules, and instructions for the operation center that is newly established.

The department did post the position in January of this year as a PEX, and the position is currently filled.

This would be adding an additional manager FTE to the city's manager classification series, and therefore the substitution is a policy matter for the board.

And then the final policy consideration for HECHEGI water power is HH 13, and this is a policy consideration to delete two 0931 manager 3 positions and one 0562 utility specialist position.

The 0931 manager 3 positions have been vacant since December 25 and December 24.

Neither position has yet been requested to fill by the department.

And then in May 26, or sorry, excuse me, this month in May of 2026, the department did post an 0923 manager 2 position for a poll use and inspection services manager.

This is currently a 5602 utility specialist in the proposed budget, but the department has indicated that they intend to use this as a temporary exchange position reclassification to oversee and manage the city's distributed antenna system.

The deletion of these positions or the retention of them is a policy matter for the board.

Moving on to water.

It is going to begin on page 71 of our report.

Water has five recommendations that we are in agreement with with the department, one partial disagreement and four recommendations that has current disagreement.

Recommendation beginning with water two.

This is a recommendation to deny a proposed upward substitution of 17250 utility plumber supervisor one to one 0932 manager 4 and instead substitute the position to 17120 building and grounds supervisor.

This position is intended to lead a newly established building and grounds team within city distribution, which is 18 custodial pest management and landscape maintenance FTEs and one chief stationary engineer.

This department argues that the scope, complexity, and level of judgment for this position exceeds the focus of the 7120 classification.

Our determination is that the 0932 manager 4 classification is inappropriate for this appointment as the classification is meant to manage a division of a medium to large departments.

And while the role requires certain administrative functions, regulatory oversight, and consultation with different teams to maintain the enterprise's facilities, these duties do fall under the essential duties established by DHR of the 7120 building and ground superintendent.

This is a vacant, excuse me, a vacant position and the underlying utility plumber position has been vacant since July of 2023 and remains in the pre-submission state.

Remains in the pre-submission stage of requesting to fill an approval of this recommendation would deny the addition of a new O900 series FTE position to citywide staff.

For water three, this is a recommendation to provide to deny the proposed upward substitution of one 7388 utility plumber to one 1824 principal administrative analyst and to delete the position.

This position is a reclassification to expand the analytical, programmatic, and operational planning responsibilities of the enterprise's asset management support team.

The planning responsibilities of the enterprise's asset management, excuse me, the department argues the need for analytical support and asset management is necessary as the division seeks to strengthen preventative maintenance programs to extend the life of infrastructure assets supporting San Francisco's water systems.

The underlying 7388 plumber has been vacant since May of 2023, and the position classification is no longer needed by the division.

Deleting this position would still allow the approval of two other substitutions in the asset management team, one of which is from an engineer to an administrative position.

Other members of the team include maintenance planners, engineers, administrative analysts, and business analysts, some of which are currently vacant, and deleting this position would allow these positions to still be filled, and for the department to determine in future budget cycles if this position and classification is necessary and appropriate for operations.

Moving on to water six, this is a recommendation to delete two new Hyundai Ionic 5 vehicles for the water quality division.

The department argues that the proposed budget is incorrect and that rather than two new vehicles, one is intended to be a replacement and one is intended to be a new vehicle, and that they are seeking to replace a number of older high mileage gasoline powered vehicles in its fleet that necessitate replacement.

The original justification for these proposed vehicles was to supply new vehicles for a water service inspector and a water quality technician, classifications which are not increasing in FTEs in the next two fiscal years within the department, and it remains unclear to the BLA whether these equipment purchases are meant to upgrade the fleet generally or if they have specific purposes.

Overall, deleting these two vehicles as well as the two vehicles in the agreed-upon Water 7 recommendation would still permit the department to purchase four new Hyundai Electric SUVs in the next two fiscal years and reduce water quality's reliance and vehicle rentals.

And then finally, for our last fiscal disagreement, this is Water 9.

This is a recommendation to delete two replacement Ford F 150 pickup truck vehicles and to in each of the fiscal years, so four vehicles total within water supply.

This is a partial disagreement as the department has agreed to two of the four recommendations and maintains that the other two vehicles are past their useful life.

Deleting these four replacement vehicles still approves the replacement of six replacement requests for Ford F-150s within just water supply.

The two vehicle replacements recommended for deletion, one of which is a 2015 Chevy Colorado at 90,000 miles, and one of which is a 2013 Toyota pre-asset 105,000 miles.

The department's rationales that these vehicles are eligible for replacement, but have not reported that the vehicles are costly to maintain or unserviceable.

And water supplies fleet of half-ton pickup trucks currently includes 36 vehicles.

The approval of these vehicles would add to that inventory count.

For the policy recommendations, we're almost done.

We're starting with water 10.

This is a policy consideration to deny the proposed upward substitution from a 7204 chief water inspector to an 0932 manager 4 within the water quality division.

The department originally proposed the position as an 0933 manager 5 classification, and this was an agreement with the mayor's budget office to downward substitute the proposed position to a manager 4.

The position oversees the expanded environmental and field services section.

This is one of many manager upward substitutions that we've identified that contribute to the growth in manager positions across the city, and therefore approving this upward substitution is a policy matter for the board.

Water 11 is a policy consideration to delete one vacant 0922 manager 1 position within natural resources.

The ongoing vacancy has caused the division to not be able to fulfill its existing obligations under the federal easements of the Peninsula Waterstead.

This position is responsible for all communications of open space districts, cities, and communities adjacent to the SFPUC peninsula in San Mateo County and the operation of existing and new trail programs, and therefore the retention of this vacant manager position, which has been vacant since December 2024 when the incumbent retired is a policy matter for the board.

And finally, for water 12, this is a policy consideration to delete one vacant off-budget 0932 manager 4 position within water resources.

The position was originally created to replace an existing project-funded CAT 18 alternative water supply program manager with a permanent position in the previous budget review cycle in fiscal 24 to 26.

It has yet to be filled by the department.

According to the water enterprise, the program manager is going to investigate projects to increase the capacity of the enterprises' water storage.

And this is a project funded by in part by the fiscal year, or sorry, the current capital plan which allocated 37 million to these projects.

This is a vacant manager position, and therefore it is a the decision to retain it is a policy matter for the board of supervisors.

And that is all for water and HECI power.

Thank you.

All right.

Thank you.

First, I just want to thank our BLA BLA analysts, Alex and Amanda, for doing a really thorough review of our budget.

There's a lot there.

So as was stated, unfortunately, we are not quite in full agreement with the BLA.

We have agreed to many of their recommendations, including reducing non-personnel spending, foregoing several equipment purchases, deleting positions, and changing position classifications to lower ones.

However, in addition to just a few equipment purchases we're asking to keep, there remain four positions recommended for elimination from our budget and two additional positions for which alternative classifications are proposed.

So I'm just going to share a bit of background about the state of our personnel needs and this budget.

And then if you have questions about specific positions, I have a number of leaders here from across our enterprises who can address those.

So first, at the direction of the mayor and also the board of supervisors, the PUC has been extremely judicious in avoiding new headcount this budget cycle.

The agency originally proposed 65 new FTE to address various growing needs and utility services.

We've reduced the request to just 42 in the mayor's office budget submission, and we've further reduced the request to just 13 in our proposal to the board of supervisors.

And then in this last week, we have further agreed with BLA recommendations to delete additional vacancies and downwards substitute to six more.

So the BLA rightfully points out that some of these positions have been vacant for some time.

So I want to address that.

You may be aware that the last 18 months, hiring has been extremely difficult.

There have been multiple hiring freezes and constant changes in the hiring process.

At the PUC today, the average civil service position takes us eight months to hire.

So a vacant position does not indicate a lack of need.

We've had to be all the more deliberate with how we how and when we prioritize every single position we go to hire.

And so you're aware about 30 to 50 positions become vacant at the PUC every month.

So it's a lot to keep up with.

In other cases, the BLA points out that there are sufficient staff to perform the duties outlined.

But in these limited cases before you, and again, I'm talking about the fiscal recommendations that we disagree with, there are either already staff in temporary positions that are performing the work, or we are utilizing a position substitution in order to meet these growing needs instead of adding new headcount.

So not a single one of these positions under consideration will add headcount to our budget.

They're all vacant positions that have been in our budget for many years.

Positions filled currently by temporary staff for work that is permanent or substitutions of existing budgeted classifications to a more appropriate classification that can meet an emerging need in that enterprise.

So in order to preserve these positions at their proposed classifications in our budget, we have offered equivalent dollar value reductions to the BLA.

They have our proposal in hand.

And if they agree to that alternative proposal, that would mean we are agreeing to nearly 93% of what the BLA has proposed.

So if you need more details about any of these six positions at issues or any of the other things that are still we're still in disagreement about, again, we're happy to address those questions.

And um we would very much appreciate it if we could reach a resolution today.

You could reach a resolution today.

Sure, we can try.

Vice Chair Dorsey Thank you, Chair Chair.

Could I ask, um, it looks like some of these are tied to pretty specific utility related functions.

How difficult is it to recruit and retain for those kinds of positions?

Yeah maybe I will ask Barb Hale Assistant General Manager for Power who can speak to some of the specific needs in the Power Enterprise and the position that's being proposed for a different classification in power.

Thank you Anna Barbara Hale Assistant General Manager for Power Good afternoon.

It's hard in a word or two words I think that was two words.

We operate in a very competitive environment so for example the 0933 manager five that's been recommended that's a position origination and power supply that's a function that occurs in every publicly owned utility every CCA like Clean Power SF.

Many of the large commercial customers like Meta and Google and Amazon they're they're pulling staff from us for those functions now because they're procuring on their own so this position core function very high consequence very difficult to retain and recruit for us this is a position that manages about five hundred million dollars a year in purchases and sales and that's a growing number because our load is growing but that's what the that's what's in the budget that's before you today is uh 420 million in purchases 40 million in sales between clean power SF and um Hatsethi power um and uh we have 25 CCAs in California I think let's see I think there's nine of us just in the Bay Area but frankly that doesn't even matter anymore because these are these are um entities that are hiring and recruiting and are fully remote I have colleagues in the in the community choice aggregation um uh sector that call into meetings from Australia from Germany um from New York so these are these are uh very hard to recruit and retain uh very competitive positions I think uh given the high consequence uh and core functions um the manager five position is the appropriate position and frankly we're gonna be coming back soon as our load grows for a higher level so downgrading it to an 0931 is um ill-advised is it um is it the case with like eliminations to these would result in savings to the general fund or is this no none of these are general fund funded positions they're entirely funded by ratepayer funds to the extent there would be vacant positions could SFP see hire people who have been laid off from general fund departments yeah absolutely every single one of these positions will be posted and um could be filled by someone from another department.

Thank you.

I don't see any name on the roster um and I wanted to be able to um if I may I know that you're eager to come to a resolution today we do have item 12 that uh free city college program and I understand that the chancellor from City College of San Francisco have to actually depart um so that uh she can attend the commencement so if it's okay, I think that what we're gonna do is we're gonna pin um SFPUC for the minute uh and then uh we're gonna call on item 12, and that we can at least have the chancellor to make brief comments and then we may um return back to because I do I'm looking at retirement as well, that we still have retirement.

So my apology, everyone.

It's just that I wanted to give the privilege uh to the chancellor for that commons, and then we're gonna return to the to retirement, and then we're gonna figure out as a PUC, and then we'll figure out the hearing shortly after.

So uh with that, Mr.

Clark, please call item number 12.

Item number 12 is a hearing on the impacts of proposed budget cuts on the voter mandated free city college programs implementation and sustainability, including the impacts to student access and retention, particularly for those experiencing the greatest financial insecurity, uh the potential elimination of universal free tuition for all San Franciscans and proposed reduction of eligibility for free city, uh, the program's role in workforce preparation, job training, and economic mobility, and the misalignment of current budget decisions with the city's stated commitment to expanding access to higher education.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chan and members of the budget and appropriations committee.

I appreciate you uh rearranging so that I'm able to speak with you briefly.

Um I do have several people with me, my Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs, who is part of the Free City Oversight Committee, our vice chancellor of finance and administration, uh as well as other staff, and this is so important to us that we um really wish we could stay longer, but we are trying to, you know, balance this busy time of year with commencement and student celebration and everything.

So just briefly, I would like to say I've been the Chancellor of City College of San Francisco for almost one year now.

Um I've spent uh my entire career in community colleges predominantly in California.

Um I've never seen a program like Free City before.

It is a tremendous partnership with the residents, the voters, the city, the county, DCYF, and City College of San Francisco.

For over 90 years, we have served this city uh with adult education, with workforce training, with transfer.

Um and what I really feel is unique about this program is that we are able to not only serve like all community colleges do, the first gen, low income, etc., but we really are a place for second chances for people to retrain to gain economic mobility that often would not be open to them because of the uh rules and regulations of financial aid.

There are many age limits that make it impossible for adult students to get financial aid.

This program serves such a critical need, and and not just with the tuition waivers, which are very, very important, but the cash grants that enable our most disadvantaged students to be able to complete.

Um later on, there is a presentation that we will share data points with you, but something that I think is really important is that the completion rate, the success rate of city uh free city scholars, uh, is higher than for those who do not participate in free city.

And uh we our enrollment has been steadily growing, and 93% of eligible um San Franciscans for Free City actually enroll and take advantage of Free City.

It's an incredibly important program that serves um the city, and we are proud to be partners in that.

Thank you, Chancellor Kimberly Massina, thank you.

Um, and so with that, uh colleagues, we're gonna return thank you to the regular programming.

Um we're gonna go back to uh actually now the next city department is the department of um retirement or I should say employees retirement system.

Madam Chair Dan Gonger from the budget and legislative analysts office for the retirement system.

Uh the it's our understanding that the department agrees with on the fiscal recommendations with recommendations number three and five and disagrees with the rest.

So I will go over those uh disagreements.

Um, so recommendation one and four are somewhat related in that they both are under the account of non-personnel services.

Uh we looked at the last three years of spending in non-personnel services and found that the department has consistently underspent in that account.

Um in the current year, there's an there was an available balance of over 10 million dollars at the beginning of this month.

At the conclusion of last year, there was an available balance of almost five million and with 1.6 million carried forward in the previous year, fiscal year 2324, um there was an available balance of 2.8 million and 1.99 million was carried forward in this account.

So that covers underspending in both uh recommendation one and four, and our um recommended reductions are just a small fraction of those unspent monies.

Recommendation number two is similar.

Um, this is a uh reduction to materials and supplies to reflect actual need.

Um we found that so this is just really a very uh modest reduction of 25,000.

Um we found that the department again consistently under spends also in materials and supplies with carry forward budgets of uh over a hundred thousand dollars in the in the last two years uh in each year.

Um for the current year um we found that there's almost 450,000 in unspent and unencumbered funds as of the beginning of this month.

Um we understand that the department plans um that some of these that about 111,000 dollars of this corresponds to a planned office relocation project and expects a year-end available balance of 247,000, which it plans to carry forward.

So the reduction of 25,000 is simply about 10 percent of that.

Um we also have so that is fiscal recommendations.

We also have um policy recommendations, which the department disagrees with.

Um, that was would be six, seven, and eight on page eighty-two of our report, recommendation six.

Um, we state that the board should consider deleting a vacant 0922 manager one position, which um was established in 2024 but has never been filled.

Um similarly, um we have a oh n 0952 direct deputy director two position, um, which we're recommending that the board considered deleting.

It's a vacant position, it's been vacant since April of 2023.

And finally, um recommendation eight is an 1116 managing director, and we our recommendation is that the board consider deleting that position, which has been vacant since August of 2022, and has never been filled.

We're available for any questions on these recommendations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chan and members of the committee.

I'm Alison Romano, CEO and CIO of the retirement system, and thank you to the BLA for uh all the work and all the good dialogue throughout this process.

Um I can address uh to start with the three areas which we did not reach agreement on with respect to current expenses, materials and supplies, and professional and specialized services.

What we put forward in the budget reflects what we expect to spend in this coming uh fiscal year.

With respect to other current expenses, we do not agree with the reduction because the expenditures are both project-driven and technology driven.

Upgrading and securing key pension technology systems is a priority, and a substantial portion of that budget goes to supporting those systems.

Simply put, our pension administration system is the backbone of benefits administration.

With respect to materials and supplies, uh the we do we do disagree with the proposed reduction there based on underspending because prior underspending again was largely driven by anticipation of a move that has been delayed.

Um, we do need upgraded computers, laptops, and equipment, and we do need to spend to to keep uh that modern uh equipment in the hands of our staff.

With regards to professional and sp specialized services, again, here we do not agree with the recommendation.

These expenditures may fluctuate year to year based on operational new needs and include such as expenses as administrative hearing officers and medical evaluations related to disability processing.

This is something that we have to do.

It is not optional, and we need to budget um for those expenses accordingly.

I can address the policy questions on the staffing uh as well.

The O922 and O952 uh functions are related to the establishment of an enterprise risk management program.

That is something very standard for large pension organizations.

It is something that um thinks about enterprise risk, enterprise strategy, ensures that we have the correct controls in place.

This is not a program that can be built out overnight.

We need people with the talent to be able to do that.

With respect to the 1116 managing director in investments, this position has been open for some time.

It was a priority this year, but we ultimately had a another 116 position that became vacant, and we have had to prioritize filling that.

Is that role oversees uh a substantial portion of our uh investment um portfolio?

So once that position is filled, we will seek to fill the open one-one six.

Thank you.

Um just kind of I I think I will um defer to Vice Chair Dorsey and kind of continuing the conversation along the lease, um, that um where we're at.

Yeah, I'm not sure that that's I I thought it's not going forward.

I mean, I think the question is that like, you know, if we're not moving forward the lease, um where would it be for next?

Like I mean, I think let's have a conversation.

Not at the moment.

Um, I think let's pin that thought, if I may.

Um that because I think some of these budget legislative uh analysts recommendation are associated with the lease and the move and um also purchase of the new equipment.

Uh well, in terms of not just whether you need a location new location or not.

Sounds like you still need some equipment upgrade, but I like to understand the status of that and uh and about the budget and legislative analyst recommendation and what that looks like.

So if that works for you, I I like to pin those thoughts at the moment, both in terms of in discussion about the budget and legislative analyst recommendation, and uh I know that you are not in agreement with them, so I would like to continue that conversation.

Okay, I really appreciate your time today.

Thank you so much for being here.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh so with that uh colleagues, I think I'm gonna continue.

I think that that clear today is clear.

Uh I know that uh both our airport and SFUC, we haven't have resolution as well as the retirement system.

I am open to discussion for SIPUC.

I don't have name on the roster at the moment.

Um we will continue to item 12.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

I'll speak to um, you know, I'm persuaded that these are difficult that for the SFPUC.

I am persuaded that these are can be difficult positions to fill, and I don't think that there is uh an effect to the general fund, and in fact, there may be an advantage to the extent there's layoffs elsewhere that we would find a place where there could be a soft landing for people who have dedicated their careers to the city and county of San Francisco.

I'm sensitive to that.

Um I would be inclined to support the position of the um department in terms of retaining its positions, but I think I'm also unsympathetic to some of the vehicle requests, which I don't know if that's what I'm hearing from some colleagues as well for the other departments.

And just through the chair for a moment, we have proposed alternative reductions for every single vehicle request that we've made.

Supervisor Walton.

Sure, Chair.

Thank you.

We're not gonna solve this today, right?

Um I think SFPC expects us to.

So she's standing there waiting for us.

I don't think that's I'm not inclined to, but I mean, I want to make sure that Ms.

Dooning actually has it, she did the work and she's waiting for IS, and I can understand it.

I'm not inclined to resolve everything today.

Um, it's you know, for SFPUC and for airport as well as for retirement.

Um, so yeah, through the chair if I may offer one last pitch.

Um, we've spent the last two weeks looking at the BLA's recommendations, preparing counter proposals, um, explaining our rationale, and I brought some 10 of my colleagues here today to answer your questions.

I know you have a lot in front of you in June, and some of those decisions are are largely general fund decisions.

So we were hopeful that we'd be able to address your questions today, that you'd be open to our counter proposals again, which get us to 93% agreement with the BLA, and that we can you can move on to other things.

So I want to offer that one last time.

If you're not ready today, we will show up again.

It sounds like we're not there yet, if I may.

Um, I mean any any colleagues can object.

And I know that you know there's still some thoughts around um planning and DBI as well that we're not quite completely there yet.

Um, so I think we're not there yet.

All right, thank you for the consideration.

Thank you so much.

And uh, I I think these conversations will continue.

Um, thank you.

And so with that, uh colleagues, we will now continue with item 12.

And uh with that, we already have her from um the chancellor, and right now we're gonna go to um Miss uh director uh Sherry's um Sharice Dorsey Smith from Department of Children Youth and their families.

Good afternoon.

Thank you, Chair Chen, um, Supervisor Walton, Dorothy Soder and Chin.

Sharice Darcy Smith, executive director for the Department of Children, Youth and Their Families.

Um I was asked why Free City is housed at DCYF, and so I want to give a little um brief explanation as to why.

So Free City College is housed under DCYF because it's a direct continuation of the city's long-standing cross-sector partnership to improve college access and completion for San Francisco youth.

This work began in 2010 with the launch of the Bridge to Success Initiative, which focused on increasing college access, matriculation, and degree completion for local students.

As a part of that initiative, DCYF served as the government and city partner within that alliance, helping align the city's youth development outreach, the equity goals, with the academic objectives of SFUSD and City College.

We also served as the fiscal agent for the initial funding for that project.

Free City College builds upon and expands this foundation.

The program continues the partnership among city college, SFUSD, and the city to remove barriers to higher education and support long-term educational attainment for San Francisco residents.

Housing Free City within DCYF advances the department's core mission and outcomes.

Through DCYF's ongoing work with SFUSD, including dual enrollment initiatives, Free City supports DC DCYF's goals that children and youth are prepared for college work and productive adulthood.

The program is therefore not only aligned with DCYF's strategic priorities, but also complements the department's broader efforts to create equitable pathways to educational and economic opportunity.

Given DCYF established leadership role in this work, proposition W designated DCYF as the fiscal administrator for Free City College, thus continuing the department's long-standing role in stewarding and coordinating these cross-sectional educational investments.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And next, we want to welcome, I believe, the um Aliyah Christie, our president of the board, trustee from City College is here, and we want to welcome her.

And thank you so much.

Trustee, I should have, I should have brought you on first as an elected official.

My apologies.

Thank you so much, Chair Chan.

Actually, we're gonna have Monica Lee from our college do the presentation first, and then I'll be going a little bit after that.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Do you have presentation already loaded up?

Yes, it's right there.

Okay.

All right.

Okay.

All right, good afternoon.

Um, my name is Monica Liu.

I'm the Dean of Enrollment Services here at City College of San Francisco.

Um I'm here to go over the overview of the Free City College program.

Free City was established through voter approved city funding in 2017.

The program provides tuition free credit course for eligible San Francisco residents attending City College.

Free City is a um for also for low-income participants who qualify for the state's California College Primarise Grant, which uh is CCPG.

The Free City program provides the $46 for each unit they take, recognizing the tuition fees are not the full cost of a community college education.

Free City is a jointly administrator by City College of San Francisco and the city and county of San Francisco through DCYF.

The program supports college access, workforce preparation, economic mobility, and student success.

Free City has become one of the San Francisco's most visible direct educational investments.

The administrative structure and operation, approximately 30 CCSF staff, support the Free City administration.

CCSF integrates the Free City eligibility screening directly into the students' registration process each semester.

The program operates span student affairs financial aid, admissions and records, the birth house office, ITS and student services.

Core functions include residency verification, financial aid coordination, outreach, debt management, and student reinstatement.

The college has continued strengthening outreach marketing and operational efficiency.

We also, yeah, that's the slide.

We also want to highlight the participation overview for um 24 25.

20,243 students use free city benefits.

93% participation amount eligibility student.

32,007 awards issue across three academic terms, the highest participation level in the past five years.

The award distribution, 63% receive the tuition waiver only.

30% receive a free city cash grant.

And then the cash grant participation continues to increase.

Next slide.

And then next is the mission burning with 9%, and baby hunters 0.7%.

And then the other area as well.

The program supports transfer preparation, workforce upskilling, career retainment, and economic mobility.

Students use Free City to access high demand workforce pathways, including healthcare technology, automotive, and skilled traits.

Free Cities supports adult learners, working families, recent high school graduates, and career changers.

Student consistently describe Free City as a pathway toward long-term economic stability.

Next I'll turn over to our vice chancellor of finance, Dr.

Ligue also.

Thank you, Dean Lu.

Chair Chan, members of the Budget and Appropriations Committee, thank you for the time to listen to our ask.

And so you see here in the left column the tuition waivers and cash grants that the college incurred over the this uh current fiscal year.

And uh in addition to the student debt that approximates just under 12 million, 12 million in operating costs to successfully roll out the free city program.

There were administrative costs that uh would add to that operational expenditure, but the college uh while we're in the process of working out a mechanism with DCYF has uh opted to absorb those administrative costs to successfully implement the program and to kind of just put it in a different proportion.

The proposed cut from 9.3 of the current year to 6.5 is approximately a 30 percent reduction.

So when you're looking at 20,000 C of San Francisco residents, that translates into the city or the city college not being able to properly or adequately serve approximately one-third of the uh participation rate.

So if we have 20,000 students and we have a 90% participation rate, that's 80,000, 18,000 students.

So the cut would translate into the college not be able to adequately serve approximately 6,000 San Francisco residents.

So that's a huge proportion.

Again, the college has uh opted to absorb these administrative costs associated with running the program, but that's probably not a sustainable um option.

And so the ask for fiscal 27 is to maintain the current funding of 9.3 million, which essentially covers the free tuition for San Francisco residents to attend City College of San Francisco.

Turn it back over to Dean Luc.

All right.

Um so we're looking at our enrollment growth.

Uh, we actually projecting about roughly uh two percent annual uh increase in our enrollment, um, and we continue to um advocate program improvement that will reduce the barrier for students next.

All right, and the free city participants attempt to um complete more unit than the non-participants, and participants persist from uh full to spring at the higher rate with the program support.

And um also the equity population students persist at the rate comparable to the non-equity peer overall.

Uh, the program is um again uh supporting long-term educational attainment and workforce preparation.

All right, and we're looking at who um benefit the most from the free city program.

A hundred percent of the free city cats grant recipients are economically underserved.

Students include first-generation students, foster youth, veterans, care work recipients, and work uh working at the house.

Many students experience significant and mid-financial need, uh, despite receiving the aid.

Free city uh reduced affordability barriers in one of the most expensive city in the country.

The program helped students remain enrolled during periods of financial instability.

Thank you.

And as we continue, I my apologies to interrupt.

I just want to make sure because I do see that there is public comments here.

I may lose quorum by 5 p.m., it seems.

So it means that I and this body, so I just wanted to be mindful of the time of the presentation.

If we can actually, because we also want to get to public comments.

So if we could finish the presentation within the next five minutes all together, I would so appreciate that.

Thank you.

Yeah, sure.

Thank you.

Um we're just gonna go ahead and highlight a few um during the presentation.

Yeah, um, so we wanted to also like highlight how and uh the all these uh students that who will participate in the program really benefit from the uh continuing support, the ongoing funding that will support more students in the future.

Yeah, thank you.

All right, thank you so much, Chair Chan.

Um, hello, members of the budget and appropriations committee.

Um, I will try to be really quick.

Um, I just wanted to really ground some of this conversation that's going to happen around Free City.

Um I'm Alia Chesse, I'm the president of the City College Board of Trustees.

I also want to acknowledge my colleagues, um Trusty Martinez and Trusty Chang, who are also here in attendance today.

And um I previously used to manage the Free City program at the Department of Children, Youth, and Their Families back in 2019 when this was when the 10-year agreement was unfolding between the city and the city county in San Francisco.

Um I think that at that time, what was really beautiful about the concept of free city was that the city of San Francisco was willing to invest in this radical idea that all San Franciscans should have access to higher education and that we should eliminate as many barriers as possible for folks to take classes to expand their minds.

And so some of this is hard to financially capture, but I truly believe just in my own background in education policy that we have fundamentally shifted the college going culture in San Francisco.

And so there are people that assumed that they could not go to Free City because or to go to community colleges because it was expensive, it's complicated, and this program changed that.

So to build this culture and this idea took time, and it's really hard to build something like this and then to take it back.

So I think that free city is just such an important investment, and it's because of the returns that we also get that taxpayers actually also get.

You get a more educated workforce, as we mentioned in the presentation, and you have economic mobility for families, and you also provide residents with knowledge that nobody can take.

So this is really a shared achievement between the city with DCYF and City College.

And this is why we're here today, because this is a partnership, and what happens next is incredibly important.

City colleges enrollment is going up.

Participation for free city is the highest in history.

The investment that you all have made is working.

And so we really want to be partners in this and to navigate navigate this process together.

And so thank you again for shedding light on this issue.

Thank you.

Can you hear me from this?

Hi.

And I sit on the Free City Oversight Committee and have since we started.

So I am here as a member of the Free City Oversight Committee with another member and Helica Campos who is coming up behind me.

And we'll try very quickly.

That's very real.

It's voter approved, and I think it's now part of San Francisco's ethos.

There are two big components.

The first is the tuition, as you've heard, and the other is the grant.

And that grant is in lieu of tuition, which gets paid by the state to make up for the cost of attendance in this very, very expensive city.

So the I'm actually going to go ahead and skip my slides.

And what I will say is that the um we um the college has prepared two documents for you that I believe the clerk now has and will and has been provided.

And I want to highlight that those two documents, one is about the program in general, but the other is about the the students, the low income students, who will in particular be in particular be excluded from the free city program, according to the current budget proposal.

The budget proposal does not allow us to maintain this program and this promise of access for all, and in fact, it excludes some of our most economically disadvantaged students.

And that is very important for equity, and I think for San Francisco overall.

So I want you to hear from one of these students for a moment, and then I know we are gonna have some amazing public comment and help out.

All right.

So I will try to make this very quick.

Uh, but my name is Angelica Campos.

I am the elected student trustee on the San Francisco City College Board of Trustees.

Really quickly, this fall, I will complete my health sexual health educator certificate, which is a pathway that has allowed me to support and educate hundreds of students across both CCSF and SFBSD high schools.

But you know, Free City for me, this has been something that has made that possible.

Um just a little bit about you know um free city and how free city has made that last school I mentioned possible.

Um free cities again not just about tuition, it's about safety, community safety, it's about community well-being and about prevention, education, and curvating opportunities for students to return to their communities with knowledge and resources that save our lives.

Um, for example, you know, this past year because of the free city class and because of my involvement in the program, the academic programs I'm in, I've done led over 60 plus presentations in SFUSD talking about intimate partner violence prevention, which is something that's really important.

That's just an example of like some of the programming that you know, free city and some of our credit classes offer up our students.

If we're thinking about how we can improve the lives of San Franciscans, young, old, whoever.

And then last but not a few comments, and I'll try to wrap it up.

Uh, you know, every single day as a student leader on campus, outside of you know, my sexual health educator certificate, I work alongside so many students here that all are trying to rebuild their lives.

So we have returning students who are trying to reskill.

We have students who benefit from the Free City program that are going to become our first responders.

So our EMTs, our you name it, our firefighters, you know, our I almost said hotline calling, but I mean we do, we do.

We do have students that go on to become some of those people who pick up the cult phone calls when we call 911.

And then we have first-generation students, our SFUSD students who do dual enrollment, who go on to free city to become free cityful free city students, and then we last but not least support veterans and disabled students, working class students, as a lot of our students here today actually took time off from work to be here.

Um these are not abstract numbers, what we were talking about earlier, uh, abstract numbers on a spreadsheet.

These are real people with real responsibilities and real hardships that they have to overcome and to be able to stay in a classroom.

Fast forward, many of these students, you know, we talked about in part of the presentation, have barriers.

I saw in the presentation, some of the student neighborhoods that we serve are the Bayview, are the tenderloin, are the Richmond District, and even in North Beach.

Um, a lot of these students, you know, are struggling with the cost of living, struggling with the cost of you know, transportation, um, and the rising cost of SAT living in SF.

And they count on Free City to make that higher education access accessible to them.

Last but not least, you know, a lot of our grant-supported students are amongst the poorest and most disadvantaged students that we have in the San Francisco, and Free City is one of the most impactful benefits and investments that we have to make San Francisco a more better uh just place for all of us, especially for those who are, you know, vulnerable to things like drug addiction, homelessness and you name it.

And that's what I'll end with.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And I think that with that, that's our presentation today.

Uh, let's get to um public comment.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for this item number 12.

If we have uh members of the community who want to address this committee, and before I do so, uh, since you since most of uh the people here in the chamber did just join us for this hearing, uh, I did want to lay down uh a couple of rules pursuant to our rules of order 1.3.1.

There are certain things prohibited in these chambers.

One of which are handheld signs.

Uh so if you do insist on holding up a sign, uh I will I'll also insist that you hold it no higher than your face, because people here do have the entitled right to be able to see our proceedings uh unimpeded.

Uh, secondarily, uh applause or vocal expression of support or opposition.

You did hear the chair say that we're trying to hear as many people as possible before we lose quorum.

So if you like what you hear, hands up.

If you don't like what you hear, thumbs down.

But uh it we will be able to hear from more people if we don't have to pause for applause breaks in between.

And with that, uh first speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Stephen Brady.

I'm an automotive instructor at the Evans Campus in uh the Bayview.

Uh prior to City Free City, uh, you know, a lot of our classes were kind of half full and stuff, but I'd just like to let everyone know that for the fall, uh, already only after a week, my uh all of my and my colleagues' classes are are full and waitlisted for the fall.

Uh this is due to Free City.

Uh on top of that, I'd just like to mention it also helps to the fact that we have a full campus, the the Bay Plaza.

Uh, our students go over there to eat lunch.

It does a lot for the business community in the area that we have a vibrant campus.

Uh you're actually, for those of you who are um are budget minded, uh, if you think of if you bought a stock today for 46 and you waited 19 weeks, and uh, and you got a return of uh 449 dollars for the stock because the state actually gives 400 for each unit of education.

You're actually getting a unit for 445 dollars, which at a four-year college would be a thousand dollars.

So you're saving those students a thousand dollars.

That's a huge gift, and it's one of the things that makes San Francisco the best city in the world.

So please, that's $60 million for these kids you're taking away if you take away the three million.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Stephen Brady.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is William is William Whitmore.

Uh and I take uh I've been taking classes at City College for quite a few years.

Um what I like to say is that I have a neighbor who spent nine years on a park bench doing drugs, and uh he graduated uh city college this just two days ago with a full ride to Santa Barbara because of free city.

You know, this has tremendous impacts for many, many people uh who would not otherwise uh be able to turn our lives around.

Um I take courses to get a better grasp on things I wasn't able to do when I was uh I dropped out of college, so this gives me an opportunity to uh get back in and go, you know, I want to I want to get my AS and finally get a degree.

I'm 68 years old, right?

Uh the other thing is, you know, 68 years old and 20 years old.

It's a great mesh.

You know, I take classes with Stephen Brady, uh, and I see all across the board the results of a free city, young people that would not otherwise be able to move forward.

The trades at Evans, uh all those programs, these people come to back into San Francisco.

They become good earners, they pay taxes, and they support other businesses.

There's thanks.

That's good.

Thank you much, William Moatmore.

Next speaker, please.

Just for clarification, that beep meant he had 30 seconds left, right?

Or yes.

Okay, thank you.

Good afternoon.

My name is Sabrina Hall, and let the record reflect exactly who's standing before you today.

I am a lifelong resident of San Francisco, baby hunter's point to be exact, but I reside in District 9.

I'm a political science major, an honor student, a student senator for CCSF Ocean Campus.

I'm the Region Three Communication Officer over all 14 Bay Area Community Colleges.

I'm also the communications director for Positive Directions Equal Change Recovery Club at City College.

I'm not just here speaking for myself.

I am standing here as the voice for real flesh and blood people whose lives and livelihoods depend entirely on the choices you make in this room today regarding Free City.

So let me be completely plain, direct, and unbothered by political politeness.

Do not touch the funded for Free City.

Reject these proposed budget cuts, point blank period.

Free city is not a luxury.

It's not some extra disposable line item.

You can get to casually scratch away with the pin when your numbers get tight.

Free city is a foundational lifeline.

It is an open door for black and brown folks, for student parents, for brothers and sisters navigating recovery, and for the everyday working class in SF who are out here doing the heavy lifting to build stable lives and get an education and break generational cycles.

For our folks at positive directions, and for thousands of students across CCSF campuses, access to higher education is an essential part of healing, reclaiming our power, and achieving true economic mobility.

When you propose cuts to free city, you are looking our community dead in the eye and telling us that our growth, our future and our self-determination don't matter enough to protect.

You are telling us that the doors that finally open up for us are being slammed shut right back in our faces.

This budget decision is direct shameful misalignment to the city-stated commitment.

Our stories matter, our education matters.

Our presence in these institutions matters.

We are asking this committee to show some real backbone, some real courage.

Stand up with the people who actually keep SF running and completely fund free city.

Stop the cuts, protect our communities, and fully fund our future.

Thank you.

And thank you, Sabrina Hall.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name's Robin Pugh.

I'm the incoming president for AFT 2121, the faculty union at City College.

And I teach business classes there, including real estate classes, among other things.

And I want to say I'm really proud of the work that AFT 2121 did when we worked with labor and other community groups to make the Free City program a real one-of-a-kind program that San Franciscans can count on.

When we were building the Free City program for San Francisco, we were very intentional and we made a point to include passing revenue with Prop W to support it.

Free City is good for San Francisco.

It's good for San Franciscans, and I ask you to fully fund it.

Please fund Free City.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Robin Pugh.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is James Tracy.

I'm the chair of Labor and Community Studies Department at City College in San Francisco, and I was the uh co-chair of the original Free City campaign.

Back in 2016, San Francisco went the other way.

While the rest of this country was going through the path of division and xenophobia, we said we were gonna make free city uh reality and we're gonna open our doors to immigrants, we're to uh working class uh students, and no matter what your policy priority is on the on this board, City College delivers, and Free City makes that possible.

If your uh priority is uh is making life better and welcoming newcomers uh to uh to San Francisco, we take care of that through at admission.

If it's uh bridging the economic and racial justice divides in this uh place, we do that all the time.

If your prior uh priority is uh increasing sobriety in this uh uh we uh in this city, we take care of that through our amazing health uh health programs.

Every single last semester, the best part of my job is the phone calls.

I'm in the construction trades now.

I'm a drug counselor now.

I learned English now, and I'm going, and I'm moving from ESL to re uh to regular studies now.

That's what we get.

That's the privilege of being a teacher at City College of uh San Francisco.

Please do not go roll back the clock.

Uh please fully fund City College uh Free City.

Thank you.

Thank you much, James Tracy.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, Chair Chang and the rest of the board.

Uh my name is Connie Ford.

I'm a long, long-term fan of City College.

Way back in the day, I got my first labor education through City College.

My son, who dropped out of high school, went back to John Adams through City College and got his GED.

And then this idea of a free city guaranteed for everyone who lives in the city came forward.

And I have been working on that with the labor movement that I led for a while.

And I have I have served on the Free City College Commission now since the beginning.

I am there, we are there, all of these people in this room are there.

It is very, very important not to take any more money.

We started out with Mayor Ed Lee, who was giving us 17 million to start out with.

That was 10 years ago.

And now everybody's been cutting it and cutting it to the fact that the mayor's office has cut it in in quadruplely half, you know.

So it's down to giving us the last three million, basically.

And we're gonna have to cut our programs, have to cut our student population for the first time.

So please put back that money.

Let us we can survive with 10 million dollars.

That's all we need for now.

And we urge you to consider that.

Thank you.

And thank you, Connie Ford.

Next speaker.

My name is Joaquin Hirado Laguna, and I live in the mission.

I've been a student at CCSF for two years, and these years have changed my life.

Two years ago, some friends and I were wondering how we can communicate over loud crowds at a parade for helping with bike security.

We decided to start taking American Sign Language at CCSF.

I knew little about the amazing Deaf community and deaf culture that I would learn about.

Now, one of my friends works as an educator with deaf children, and the rest of us attend deaf events all over the Bay Area.

Without Free City, we wouldn't be a part of this community.

We wouldn't have been able to afford learning about this amazing culture.

Without Free City, I would also not have been able to communicate with my deaf cousin from Peru for the first time in years.

And this is something I'll always be thankful for.

Free City helped me and my friends protect people up parades.

Free city opened doors for us for new opportunities.

Free city has reconnected me with my family.

My story is just one of more than 20,000 SF residents each year held by Free City.

So please, please, I urge you to restore the cuts and support free city.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

So good afternoon, board members.

So my name is Lorenzo Casanero.

I'm uh I'm on the SF Reinstry Council.

I host C4.

I'm also president of the Positive Directions Equal Change Recovery Club on campus.

Also, I'm a member of the Positive Directions Club CBO on a street.

I did 17 years behind the wall.

I'm forming in Cars Ready.

I'm a rising scholar.

I have a 3.9 grade point average.

I'm one of the core members of uh students for justice.

I have about one more year until I graduate and I'll graduate with four degrees.

And um, you know, me getting out 17 years, getting out hitting the streets.

Free city saved my life.

Free city, the last two years that paid for my education.

So please, I urge you to really take a look at the budget and fund, continue funding free city, because if we don't, that's like building a wall between us and our education.

So please um take that into consideration.

That's all I got.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Um, my name is Sofia Flores Guevara, and um, I'm a little nervous.

And I'm a single mother of three children from the mission district.

I'm a rising scholar and a member of Positive Directions Equals Change.

I've survived addiction, homelessness, and many barriers that too often push many marginalized communities out of education instead of welcoming welcoming them in.

As a Latina woman, a mother, and someone who has had to fight for every opportunity, I know what it feels like to wonder if the doors of higher education will stay open for people like us.

For students in recovery, undocumented students, low-income families, women caring for children and loved ones, and those trying to rebuild their lives after hardship programs like free city are not luxuries, they are lifelines.

City College of San Francisco gave me the opportunity to believe in myself again.

It gave me the up the it gave me community purpose and ability to create a better future for my children while serving others around me.

Because of that support, I've now been inspired to step into student leadership and will serve as student chancellor for the 26-27 school year.

I am deeply concerned about what happens if we stop investing in students who are already carrying the weight of survival every single day.

Every uh education should not only belong to the wealthy and privileged, our communities deserve access to healing, opportunity, and dignity too.

Please protect free city college and continue investing in students who need the most, uh, who need it most.

When you support programs like this, you are supporting mothers, immigrants, people in recovery, just as impacted students, caregivers, and entire families who are simply asking for a fair chance to succeed.

Thank you.

And thank you, Sophia Flores Gavada.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker.

Please begin.

Hi, my name is Anisa.

I want to go to CCSF in the future, but that will only be possible through Free City.

Thank you, Lisa.

Next speaker.

Come on, baby.

My name is Luce to care about San Francisco is to care about Free City.

Please fund it for me.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

My name is Laura Cohen, and I live in the tenderloin, and I've been taking classes since 2019.

And I'm gonna try not to cry, but the Free City College has done so much for me.

Um, the city wants the downtown area to look new and fresh and um be full of flowers.

And there is a flower stand that is right next to the Louis Vuitton um the Macy's.

And um, I have been given the opportunity to run that flower stand.

But I need to complete my degree at City College, and there's the floor history program there, which I've been taking classes from or with since 2019.

The man who runs that, Steven Brown, he tried to get someone to become his successor.

He had her lined up for tenure.

Then we had City College go through a round of cuts, and now he's the only person working in the floristry department.

That's one teacher running the entire department, and that is way too much to ask of any single person.

So if we want our downtown to look good, if we want to have workforce development, then why are we not investing in city college?

That is your workforce development right there.

And I sat here and I watched the board of supervisors give the police officers a 14% raise over the next couple years.

So right now, the police officers, the lowest paid police officers are gonna get more than the highest paid teachers.

What does that say about us?

I rest my case, I yield my time.

Thank you much, Laura Cohen.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Eddie Escotto.

I study at CCSF.

I study biology for pre-medicine.

I was born in Miami, Florida.

I moved across the continent and became a San Franciscan forever.

Only because I knew a free city free city college.

I could not afford school if it wasn't for Free City.

That's why I moved across the entire continent.

You'll find that virtually all of my schoolmates are in the same position that I am.

Obviously, you see from my case that Free City of San Francisco is not only a beacon of hope and an example for the entire nation, it is an entire for it is an example for the entire world.

And if you allow Mayor Lurie to take away our full funding, you will not only be, you will be turning San Francisco into the disgrace of democracy.

You will be turning it into the disgrace when it once was the example.

I want you to understand that, and I want you to think about that.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, everyone.

I started to college in 2013.

And I was taking classes and I I struggled a lot, but I got I got sports systems like uh the law DSPS and a lot uh law services at C College and I was uh working hard and it was hard work and I graduated in 2019, got my AS degree, and and I jumped at UC Davis, got my bachelor's degree at 2022, and I kept working hard and and I came back in uh city college and back in 2024 and and to get away for a master's program, which I'm going to get my master in next year, and and I'll start with master program in fall 2024, fall 2026, I'm gonna say and I I did all this because of Free City.

It helped me, supported me, and I feel like Free City should continue, still could keep going.

I still like um uh having support system for us and for our students and still helping others like like me and a lot of students.

So I I think please uh please I could continue uh uh funding uh free city and I keep going on and yeah, thank you.

Bye bye.

Thank you much for addressing us, committee Richelle.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lily, and I'm a Chinatown resident.

City College changed the direction of my life in ways I never expected.

I came in unsure of myself, trying to balance school, work, and family responsibilities all at once.

What I found at City College was not just affordable education, but a community that believed students like me were worth investing in.

Through City College, I became involved in community health work and served immigrant and underserved communities.

My professors and counselors didn't just teach me, didn't just teach classes, they challenged me to grow into a better student, a better person.

Free city made that possible.

Instead of worrying about whether I could afford another semester, I was able to focus on learning, serving my community, and growing into the person I want to become.

When people talk about funding free city, they're not talking about a school budget.

They're talking about whether thousands of San Franciscans will still have access to opportunity, stability, and hope.

Being the first city in the country to provide free college education, free city has already helped a hundred twenty thousand residents pursue education and rebuild their futures.

CCSF opens doors for first generation students, working adults, immigrants, parents and seniors, and so many others who deserve access to opportunity.

San Francisco, please keep your 10-year promise.

Thank you so much.

And thank you, Lily.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan and members of the committee.

My name is Michael Rupe.

I'm a district nine resident, a former city college uh psychology student who took classes at both the Ocean and Castro Valencia campuses.

I'm here to stand with the thousands of students, faculty, and labor workers demanding that you stop the proposed cuts to free city college funding.

In 2017, San Francisco made history via Prop W.

I voted for it.

As the first city in the nation to offer tuition-free higher education, it wasn't a handout, it was a promise.

Funded by the voters to ensure our working class neighbors, immigrant communities, and students of color could thrive in an expensive city.

These proposed cuts would unilaterally strip away critical grants from our most financially strapped students.

The data shows that we saw earlier that this program works.

Free city college recipients enroll in more units, succeed at higher rates, and build San Francisco's vital workforce.

Our future nurses, EMTs, firefighters, and tradespeople.

Over 9,000 students from equity populations we rely on this exact funding to cover basic educational costs.

As a former student who benefited directly from academic excellence of City College, the neighborhood campuses, I know firsthand how essential this institution is for community health, equity, opening doors, and for people across the city.

Cutting this program violates the tenure commitment to our communities.

We urge you to stand by the city's residents, reject these cuts, and fully fund the program.

Free City College makes possibilities.

Thank you.

And thank you, Michael Rapay.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name's Maggie Harrison.

I'm an 18-year English faculty at City College and 12-year chair of the women's and gender studies department.

And in this position, I have borne witness to the impact of the free city legislation.

I'm honored to have personally worked with hundreds of students whose lives have been transformed, who have been able to pursue higher education because of this policy.

I was able to hear Supervisor Chan Saturday night actually make an argument in a different context for San Francisco being serving as the moral and ethical conscience of the nation, and that that's our role here.

When San Francisco voters passed Free City, we said that poverty should not be a barrier to higher education, that all of our neighbors and all of our community members deserve the support to grow and to develop as critical thinkers, as creatives, as skilled contributors to our world.

Don't get me wrong, free city does not eliminate the inequities that we face and navigate, but it makes such a significant, tangible difference.

It's a manifestation of our city's values.

Um the return on investment is glorious on days like tomorrow when we get to celebrate the graduation of uh and the academic success of community members who never would have had access without this legislation.

Um, free city makes me proud, not only as a city college faculty, but also as a San Franciscan.

Um so I I implore you to maintain the free city funding for our neighbors who deserve this access and to help San Francisco light the way forward for the nation and to concretely serve as the ethical and and moral conscience of the nation.

Thank you much, Maggie Harrison.

Next speaker, please.

I'm Michael Lyon.

I used to teach um physiology to nursing students in the evening.

So I would walk into class and see a complete classroom, probably three-quarters of the people were waiting, and they had their heads down, and they were trying to get a little bit of rest before class began began because they'd been working hours and hours in nursing homes and other kinds of really hard jobs.

But when I started talking, everybody woke up, their heads went up, they were extremely there, they were fantastic students.

And several years later, I had to have surgery at Kaiser, and damned if I didn't have one of my own students as a nurse.

This is what happens when you when you create a workforce, and we know that there is a terrible shortage of health care workers, but there's a shortage of all kinds of workers in San Francisco.

So you have to decide do you want the city to grow and prosper?

Or do you want to have turn the city over to having it just go down the drain in order to be able to pay the billionaires huge amounts of money?

That's it.

Is it the working class or is it the billionaires?

Thank you much, Michael Lion.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, I'm a long-time born and raised San Francisco resident.

I can go on about my issues, but you know what?

Um there's similar issues.

It's not about me, it's about everybody in this room that is affected by free city, black and brown, justice impact it, and system impact it.

And I'm just, you know, I got a second chance with Free City.

I've had a lot of people tell me, no, you're not gonna do it, but this free city gave me the social justice to take my education back to do good for others, and um I'm just really disappointed if this program gets cut.

This is not just a privilege, this is a right for San Francisco.

And I used to be a GA recipient, and I want a real chance on a real job, not temporary jobs, a PhD in resume writing.

I want real skills, real jobs, not just short term just to keep us out of the way.

You know, there's people, we're human beings, we deserve this.

This is a human right.

This is not a privilege.

Please restore the funds and please help support Free City.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name's Caitlin Morgan.

I live on Petrero Hill, and I think that we have some faith of getting this funding back because um chairwoman Connie Chan is running for senator.

Oh, Congress right now?

Congress.

I'm sure she really wants that, and I think that if she's going to be running claim to create plans like this for California in general or the US, that keeping that funding here in this city is an important step to that.

And she's already said that she opposes more cuts, and I hope she keeps her word for that.

That's what I got.

Thank you much, Caitlin Morgan, next speaker.

Um, hi, my name is Maria Um Derek.

Um, as someone whose dad never went to um high school and whose mom got her associates like later in life, and both of which uh struggle with addiction.

Um, you know, I tried going to SS State, but I wasn't able to uh go for longer than a year, and even just in that year I owe like five thousand dollars in debt, which um I'm heavily struggling with, and so for years I wasn't going to school until I found out about Free City, and um it just uh it gave me the opportunity after being uh like in and out of psychiatric institutions, it was like a like a beacon, like a like a fresh hope, fresh start.

Um seeing like all sorts of different people um feel the same way uh was really heartwarming.

Um then um, you know, uh having uh my cousin live over in Riverside, I you know, in a in a city where you're not able to um have like free community college and seeing the struggle with that.

Um it just made me realize that it's an opportunity that everyone deserves and um I would highly uh you know urge you to open your hearts and put yourself in the position of people that are not able to um afford higher education and to help them in um any ways that you are able to.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Mary Derek.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Vic Chung.

I use they dumb pronouns.

I serve on the Harvey Milk Board as well as the City College of San Francisco Board of Trustees.

I want to share with you uh some of the things that our presenters really touched on, right?

And really highlight these points is the proposal that is being brought before us is cuts to grants, right?

And this is about access to those who are most marginalized.

It also means that it will cost us enrollment.

And if you uh as uh someone I like to think of as uh now an expert in our funding for for community colleges, our district relies on enrollment in order to for that is how we receive our funding.

So if we make our institution less accessible, it will be more difficult for us to bridge a gap that we're experiencing in funding at this moment because of enrollment.

So you will you would lengthen the time in which we can actually stabilize the institution in the long run if you make these cuts.

And I also want to share a personal story.

I got in I returned to city college after I graduated from UC Davis and worked for a few years.

I didn't it took a while for me to reflect on my experience as a survivor of domestic violence and it was only because of the Free City program that I enrolled in city college again.

And it was through the and thank goodness I did because during the pandemic it was in that moment that I needed to leave my home because it was most dangerous.

And because I had access to the resources at the college I I then turned that trauma ran for student trustee obtained the love from this community and then ran for the board of trustees later.

So I'm here representing that because of the possibilities that Free City gave so please find the funding to fully fund us.

Thank you.

I'll try to make this quick good afternoon Chair Chan and members of the budget committee my name is Jeremy Lee and I am a very proud third generation San Franciscan.

I want to remind you all that at its core funding education is an investment in the people of San Francisco and will pay dividends for years to come because it's a smart investment to make sure new immigrants are able to learn English and take classes and contribute to the growth of this city it's a smart investment to make sure that stay at home moms have the ability to retrain and reenter the workforce it's a smart investment to make sure that young students can earn college credit while living at home and transfer to a four year institution with a little extra money in their pockets I also want to remind this body just how much of a fight it was to even get free city college in the first place when Free City College passed in 2016 Mayor Ed Lee didn't want to spend the money his administration said it wasn't the right time back then I was a young intern in Supervisor Jane Kim's office and I stood alongside the members behind me of AFT 2121 we held public demonstrations we put pressure on Mayor Lee and we told him to heed the will of 62% of the voters in the end the mayor relented and agreed to make San Francisco the first city in the nation to make community college free again because San Francisco is a beacon for progressive values in this nation in these dark and uncertain times the rest of the country looks to San Francisco for leadership and for hope and because we are the conscience of this country San Francisco must show what's possible what's just and what is right thank you.

And thank you Jeremy Lee next speaker Kim Cavallone San Francisco labor council um I'm kind of beguiled about being here today and um you know when this passed we knew that the tax that was passed was bringing in way more money than was being spent on city college that's a fact and we always knew that going in but that was the college's promise to the city that they would help bring in general dollars general fund dollars but a portion of that has to be spent on city college and the fact that now mayor Lurie is cutting this program is obscene.

So I don't know what the hell he's looking at because he's investing in cops not in education that's that's obscene.

Educated people don't commit crimes.

Our city is safer because of city college because of the people they do it and many of you on this board not all, but many of you ran on this safety.

You know, let's make the city safe.

Let's push homeless people out of the way.

That's what you do.

But if you really want to keep the city safe, you're gonna educate its population.

You're gonna make sure that there isn't an underclass, a permanent underclass who doesn't get desperate and feel the need to steal in order to survive.

That is the future that you are setting up for San Francisco.

And some cuts don't heal.

And Mayor Lurie needs to know that San Francisco is not about just the rich and shameless, though he will sell parts of the city off.

Don't stand by those because you will pay a price.

The residents you represent will pay the price by making this type of cut.

I wanna be crystal clear about it.

The labor council stands by free city.

It's one of the things that we united on.

Thank you very much, Kim Tefagaloni for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

And my name is Eric Christensen.

I'm a communication instructor at City College of San Francisco.

I've been teaching there for 13 years.

I'm also the political director for AFT 2121, which is a faculty uh union, and I'm also a graduate of City College.

And it took me years to go back to school as a returning adult because I couldn't find the money to pay the tuition.

I really wish I had a free city college when I went back.

Um but because of City College, I fell in love with the school, I fell in love with the teachers.

Everything about it was so amazing because it gave me that second chance in life.

And today my students call me Dr.

Christensen because of my start at City College.

But I want to talk to you about we need to restore the funding, we need to fully fund the program, and that's not even enough.

I can't tell you how many students of mine are struggling with food, housing, basic needs at such an extreme level.

I have students who email me going, I'm sorry I can't come to class today because I can't I can either eat or I have money to get transportation.

I can't do both today.

This is the bare minimum we need to fund this program, the very bare minimum.

But we could do so much more, and we could lead the nation in what we do.

So I I just ask you, please restore the cuts, support free city, and we make people's dreams come true.

It made my dreams come true, and I want to see this for other people, so thank you.

Thank you much, Eric Christensen.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'll try to be fast because I have to go to my next final as soon as I'm done.

Um my name is Jason Flagg.

I have lived in San Francisco for over five years in district two.

I currently attend city college in preparation for a graduate school.

I was laid off of my job after working for my company for nine years.

I was proud of San Francisco for a free city program when I had a job, but when I realized I needed it to make a career pivot, my pride turned to relief and gratitude.

Free city allows me to return to school and prepare for my next career without undue burden.

I can use my income for my part-time job to focus on paying for my increasingly expensive rent and food costs rather than school fees.

I and so many of my fellow students rely so much on Free City.

Please restore the cuts made to the free city program and continue to support it.

Thank you very much.

And thank you, Jason Flagg.

Next speaker.

Hi, Aldoa.

Uh, give me one second.

My name is Laila Chambers, and I'm a CCSF student pursuing a child development and early child education degree.

Um, and first of all, if you all just want to spend more on trash cans and college education, we got a way bigger problem than budgets, okay?

A way bigger one.

As someone who was born and raised in San Francisco, I've seen how the city has gone from a place of opportunity to a land full of maybes.

Maybe I'll be able to take public transportation.

Maybe I'll be able to afford food this week, maybe I'll be able to pay my bills this month and now maybe I'll be able to go to college.

Maybe I'll be able to get a higher education.

So today I urge you, please don't revoke the opportunities of thousands attending city college.

Reports show that over 17% of SF residents live below the poverty line.

Another shows that one in 12 households face food insecurity.

Another that almost 8,000 people face homelessness here.

Let me ask y'all, does that mean they don't deserve a higher education?

Yes or no?

Does that mean that they don't deserve to go to school and pursue growth and do better for themselves?

Yes or no?

Exactly.

The answer is no, and it's always gonna be no.

San Francisco residents shouldn't have to choose between paying our rent and going to school.

My college career as well as many other students at CCSF would have not been possible without the Free City program.

So when you threaten to cut this funding, you threaten the livelihoods of thousands of people who are just trying to make it by in this city that cost too damn much.

But what we getting?

Education is community.

Education is an outlet, education is meaning, education is growth, and education is necessary.

Do not stagnate our youth for the benefit of the better off.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Madison Roche.

I'm the organizing chairperson of CCSF Students for Justice.

I want to first acknowledge all of the students, many of them who sent me a statement that they wanted me to make on their behalf.

I was told that I couldn't.

But dozens and dozens of students who uh are either in a final right now or are working or for whatever reason, if a family thing can't come, I want to acknowledge that they all matter.

And I want to speak in defense of the 18,000 future students that our billionaire mayor's proposed budget will ensure do not have access to higher education.

In 2023, I was getting a master's degree remotely from Columbia University, and I got priced out of my master's degree, and then I spent about a year and a half trying my best to get a job in my field, and I was unable to do it.

Uh the I was experiencing acute poverty uh for about a year and a half, and CCSF is the community in the school that caught me and allowed me to upskill, and I'm now gainfully employed as a political data engineer.

Most recently I was directly responsible for around 30,000 yes votes in favor of the democratic redistricting in Virginia.

And so I just say that so that you know that if you want San Francisco to be a moral and political center of this country, and you want us to spread our progressive values and our values of helping each other and mutual aid, you need to invest in the students that are here.

Uh I work at the Women's Resource Center, uh, working predominantly with people who are experiencing domestic and dating violence.

I'm they're one of the first people that they come to at the college if they need help.

Um, students are pulling themselves out of poverty and they use the free city program to do so.

They're escaping dependence from their abusers.

And these students do the work, it's not a handout.

They do the very, very hard work of lifting themselves up and getting an education and getting a job in their careers.

And I'm asking that you please restore full funding to the free city program.

And I ask you also to think about going beyond that and not just give students the bare minimum, but expand this program to expand San Francisco workforce.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Madison Rush.

Oh, and uh Madison Roche, if you can uh compile those statements that you spoke of and email them.

I redirected them to the email so they.

Thank you much.

All right.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, thank you for holding this hearing.

My name is Michael Adams.

I'm a part-time student at uh City College.

I came to San Francisco from the Midwest, where we had to pay for every class.

Uh and it delayed folks going to school, delayed folks graduating from school.

I was in the city planning industry, and we used to come and study San Francisco and learn what not to do in terms of urban renewal, transportation, public transportation, real estate, redlining.

And then when city came along, I was very happy to report back to my friends and allies and significant others in other parts of the country.

Look what San Francisco has done.

It's unlike many and most other places.

So, with my background with degrees, I enrolled in music and motorcycle repair because those were a hobbies that I wanted some more help with.

And it wouldn't surprise anyone here to learn that I'd sit in a class and there'd be three generations of us in the same class, studying the same thing with the similar outcomes.

Some of them got better grades than I did.

So we thank you and those who preceded you for what Free City offered.

But we're in a different position now.

And uh I'd like to be a little bit less polite and not call this cuts that you're trying to come across with.

These are amputations.

These are amputations of people staying in the city, working in the city, spending in the city, inviting others to come to the city.

When we have a growing loss of population, those cuts, as we say it's city college, won't heal.

Thank you very much.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, my name is Sophie.

I'm born and raised here in San Francisco.

I'm from the Richmond district, and I actually voted for you in both elections, Connie Chance, so I hope you as well as the rest of the board listen to what I have to say.

So I wanted to share a bit about my background and my experience with CCSF.

I've been involved with City College since about 2024.

I'm an actor and a performer, and I came to City College to take classes in acting, singing, and dance.

I decided to go to City College because the Free City program made these classes accessible to me.

And I'm so grateful to have these classes because continually taking classes is so important for performing artists.

However, acting, singing, and dance classes can get expensive very quickly.

This is why accessible arts classes like the ones provided at CCSF are so important.

In addition, since being at CCSF, I've gained skills and connections to go to go out and get involved with the performing arts community in the Bay.

This includes paid performing arts communities.

So I have CCSF and the Free City program to think for helping to launch my career.

I also wanted to share that the arts are so important to the city of San Francisco.

You see it in museums in local performance venues and in the murals as you walk down the street.

CCSF is helping to build the next generation of artists in the city, thanks to the Free City program providing accessible arts classes.

However, with the budget cuts, CCSF accessible arts classes and its students are at risk.

Therefore, I ask you all to do what you can to prefer to protect the Free City program and to help save its budget.

Thank you.

And thank you, Sophie.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Deborah Walinski.

I live and raise my family in District 4, and I retired from city college in 2017 after teaching ESL for 37 years, mostly at sites that no longer offer it or don't offer anything, like John Adams Civic Center and Parpo Cityo Church and Gene and Middle School, all kinds of places.

Education should be free, and it used to be free.

Free City is a start toward restoring free education and should be expanded and made easier to access.

So support Free City, no cuts.

Thank you.

And thank you, Deborah Lewinsky.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Kelvin Ekman.

Two years ago I was homeless and uh extremely suicidal to the point where I had no future or believed that.

Uh because of Free City.

I enrolled uh pretty late uh in the summer of 2024, um, got into a physics class and uh my bicycle repair class just to um potentially receive some funds just to get me back on my feet.

Uh over the summer I learned about the Hearts program, it's their homeless at risk transitional studies or transitional students program, as well as rising scholars.

I'm just as impacted as well.

Um, if it wasn't for free city, I wouldn't have continued my education at City College and I wouldn't be graduating tomorrow with the 3.95 GPA transferring to San Francisco State University.

Um I'm housed and will have housing at SF State, which I'm really proud of and thankful for.

Um but I as a student leader uh now I'm uh vice president of community resources with associated students.

I hear every day students, I see students every day who tell me that um they aren't sure of what their future will look like.

And I I uh before coming in today, I didn't know that we were cutting it down to six point five million.

Um I thought it was 7.2.

Uh these cuts are are going to hurt San Franciscans.

I'm born and raised on the Presidio of San Francisco, so I ask and I urge you to please reconsider this fully fund the Free City program, allow students like myself to have a future.

Um I promise you that when you invest in San Franciscans, when you invest in the community at large, you'll see a great difference.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Kelvin Eckman.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Sasha Wright.

I am uh with Jobs with Justice San Francisco.

We're a coalition of um community organizations and labor unions, and we were part of the coalition that fought to win funding for Free City and to create the program originally.

Um over last year, when it looked like there might be serious cuts to the Free City program.

We went back to talk with our membership, and my God, I've just never seen um such an outpouring of of uh really inspiring, hopeful, overwhelming stories about how free city impacted the lives of so many jobs with justice members.

This is everyone from you know members of uh immigrants of in um community groups in San Francisco to union members, um, people used free city to uh to start their college education to send their kids to college to change careers after they got laid off to learn how to fix cars and get a better paying job.

Uh we we've been working with some of our community organizations and public sector unions in San Francisco to look at potential um pipelines to get folks who are in lower paying careers into higher paying careers, um, in in uh places like the Department of Public Health, where there's been long vacancies in um uh clinician um clinic positions that we need, and it turns out that free city already offers those pipelines, and so this this program is really a no-brainer.

You're hearing um all of the amazing ways it's touch people's lives today.

You can go to Free City Instagram and hear more of those stories.

Um but this is this is our program.

We've we funded this as San Franciscans, and this is this is already mandated, and it's actually um this is theft if you take this program away.

Uh we've gotta keep this.

This is one of the few things that's still working in San Francisco.

But thank you much, Sasha Wright.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, uh, Rashika Zahir.

Um I'm I live in District Three of San Francisco, and I'm a CCF CCSF student plan to transfer to SF State for humanities degree.

I'm also a part of the CCSF Students for Justice Club.

Uh I came to CCSF partly because of the affordability that programs like Free City provides.

Since I don't currently have a job, the Free City Cash Grant has helped me cover costs for things like food and bus fare.

So I ask that you all don't lower the Free City budget to the approximate six to six point five million that's being proposed for the next school year.

Free city is crucial for me and others in avoiding student debt and for paying for basic necessities.

Thank you.

And thank you, Rashika Sahir.

Next speaker.

I appreciate City Color is vital para las trabajadoras del hogar, para los hijos de ellas, las trabajadoras del hogar, porque the ahí salen graduados.

El City Hall.

Gracias.

Thank you much, Erica Chavez.

I'll be translating for Erica.

Hi, my name is Erica Chavez.

I'm a member of Nuevo Zoo, and I'm here to talk about the importance of fighting for Free City.

In Free City, um, women, we've been working for 35 years, taking classes, and it's really really important for us because we learn how to defend our rights and how to negotiate for ourselves.

It's very important for our labor rights and our jobs.

It is vital for our jobs and for our children because our children take classes at city college and they are able to graduate as well.

So please save free city college for all of us.

Thank you.

Thank you much for the assistance.

Thanks again, Erica Chavez for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

I'll be translating for Teresa Palacios.

She her son uh transferred from city college to university, and she's very proud of him because he was only able to do it because of city college.

She would also like for workers just like her to be able to put their sons and daughters through college with city college because it's the only way that they're able to do so.

Her niece also uh benefits from city college, and it is really their only means of getting an education.

Muchas gracias.

Thank you very much.

Yes, and thank you for the assistant.

Thank you, Teresa Placida.

Next speaker.

Hello, board members.

My name is Precious Ulaku Emichi.

I am a social and behavioral sciences major at City College of San Francisco.

In the start of my city college journey in 2020, I was diagnosed with schizophrenia.

And if we don't know, schizophrenia reduces life expectancy by nine to 20 years.

City College of San Francisco did not discriminate me or exclude me from receiving an education.

Instead they gave me accommodations so I can be a successful successful student.

Free city for me means that people like me who are battling with mental health challenges get a fair shot at receiving an education and breaking negative stigma placed on them.

With Free City, I can learn to manage my symptoms, be a more responsible person, and become a positive role model for those living with mental health challenges.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Esther Mondesir, and I am a student worker and resident of, I'm a student worker at City College.

And I'm really pissed right now.

I'm really, really mad.

You can go ahead and tell Lurie that because I feel like I've been fighting for my survival and my education ever since I've uh started living in this city.

I was born here and I've been living here for over 10 years, and I am also a student that is studying film at City College of San Francisco.

I left SF State because I didn't I wasn't able to afford any more semesters and I thought all hope was lost because my parents came here so that I can be someone in this country.

That was always a goal.

There's a lot of people of color on this board here too, so I know you guys know our parents need us to be somebody.

Why is that so difficult in this city?

If I'm not starving, I'm struggling to be able to, I'm struggling to to go to school.

I'm struggling to get um transportation to even be there.

And this city has the my art department and so many departments like it have received so many cuts because city gets cut, city has received so many cuts, and when is it gonna stop?

When are you gonna prioritize the people for real?

You want money in this city, you want to clean up this city.

Why don't we educate this city so that we can do those things?

Thank you for this time for letting my colleagues and other people who believe in City College and this program.

I implore you, I seriously urge you guys to really deliberate and prioritize this city and his education.

If you guys care about us so much.

Thank you.

And thank you, Esther Mondesir, next speaker.

Hello, my and good afternoon.

My name is Lola Moximoro.

I'm born and raised in San Francisco's district six, and I am a student at City College.

I'm here during finals week to speak to how regular San Franciscans rely on Free City to access the life-changing services and education City College provides.

So many of the incredible people I have met at City College would not be there without Free City.

With Free City, parents who save every dollar to support their children are able to save while they are in school.

Students my age who are born and raised in the city and are effectively homeless, who do not get much support can be supported at CCSF, can find teachers who care about their success, can find career skills, can find pathways to uplift.

People who work long hours to afford their rent and could not divert any more time, energy, or funds to college fees are able to have a place at City College.

At CCSF, I'm surrounded by San Francisco's future nurses, teachers, and firefighters who will better our world because of Free City.

Programs like Free City give people safety, opportunity, and joy that will protect San Francisco more than increased funding for omnipresent surveillance and sustaining the police state.

Please recognize the potential in every student as someone who is worth investing in.

Please show some love to the people who keep this city running and grant them the chances City College provides.

Generations of San Franciscans will thank you.

Thank you for your time.

Thank you, Lola Maximoro.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Athena Clearonamos.

I've been studying history and Spanish at City College for the last year.

Like many thousands of others in the tech and games industry in the Bay Area, I was laid off.

But Free City has made it possible for me to reskill.

Free City has allowed me to find a community of fellow queer and trans students.

Free City will hopefully help me re-enter the workforce despite my lack of stable income.

Please do not eliminate these possibilities for future students.

Please restore the cuts, and please know that Free City is our future.

Thank you for listening to all of us.

I know this is gone long.

I now need to catch a bus, so I won't miss my final one.

Thank you and goodbye.

Thank you much, Athena Claremon.

Next speaker.

Yes, hi.

My name is Tim Killikelli, and I taught uh political science at City College for 25 years, proud member of AFT 2121.

I retired in 2022, and now I'm a uh beneficiary of city college.

And I want to tell you about a story that happened uh just last night.

We were finishing up a screenwriting class that I'm taking, and one of the students was uh we were looking over one of his stories, talking about it.

It was a sci-fi fantasy story, and he talked about his experience in the foster care system.

He had turned uh he was homeless after he turned 18.

He was sort of really lost, and um what happened was he ran into somebody who was a counselor at the Guardian Scholars Program, which helps foster youth, and told him about Free City, and it was like in the actual story that he wrote, and to hear it last night was just kind of you know, it was very compelling because I knew I was coming here today.

And now he is making films in the department, he has received several different scholarships, uh, and he's really moving forward with his life.

And I'm sure that someday you will be uh, you know, you will see his work in a theater uh one of these days, or you're gonna see it on Netflix or somewhere.

And that's the kind of person that we really need to support in this city.

People, people like uh, I'm not gonna mention his name because he didn't say anything to me about it, but he is the kind of person you need to support.

And actually, I see a couple of other people who were in my class, and there you go.

And uh, so it's a way to also support the arts, and so uh please.

Um, this program is so important to so many people.

I appreciate your time.

Thank you.

Especially to our future Congresswoman, Connie Chan.

Thank you very much, Daniel Kelly.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon.

My name is Adolfo Velasquez, alum of City College and retired counseling faculty of City College.

Native Americans are approximately 3% of the total U.S.

population, although they hold the highest rate of incarceration, the lowest annual household income, the highest rate dropout rates in school, and the lowest graduation rates.

At City College, the latest rates show that there's 81 students that identify as Native Americans.

Two years ago, I was fortunate to be part of the team that brought the Native American Indigenous Studies to City College.

City College had two missed opportunities.

One in 1969 after the creation of the College of Ethnic Studies at SF State, and then again in 2007 at the San Francisco Human Rights Commission put out a report asking for city colleges to create a Native American studies program.

I went last night to the final class of the second offering of the introduction to Native American Studies, and I was thrilled to see how many Native American students were there and their enthusiasm and momentum to start a Native American student organization and the ask to get a Native American counseling division as part of the Multicultural Center at City College.

Please don't contribute to a third missed opportunity to kill this momentum that's happening at City College with our Native American population.

Students are thrilled.

Most recently, I was um appointed to the um leadership council at the American Indian Cultural District, where I'll be working with higher education and bringing in Native American students to into leadership positions future.

So I ask, please keep the budget for Free City.

Thank you much, Adolfo Velasquez, next speaker.

Good evening.

My name is Adam.

I'm a resident in San Francisco, a shop steward with OPEIU Union Local 29, and a member of the HIV Advocacy Network in the Harvey Milk Democratic Club.

I'm here to defend the Free City College program and to urge the committee to restore the cuts.

The Free City College program has uplifted thousands out of poverty, both benefiting and investing in the future of those living in SF.

This program allows those who are low income, queer and trans, and many more to pursue their educational dreams without having to worry about the cost.

I have helped many queer and trans young adults enroll in CCSF in my day job, and the results are astonishing.

When clients tell me they want to go to school but can't afford it, and they learn about the Free City program, they go from hopeless to gushing with joy.

Cutting this program will undermine the future of thousands, robbing many of their goal of educational success in one of the wealthiest cities in the world with over 50 billionaires living here.

It is inexcusable to allow these cuts to happen.

Our youth, our communities, SF's future cannot afford these cuts.

Members of the committee restore these cuts and support free city.

Thank you.

And thank you much, Adam.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Alyssa O'Lear.

I'm a resident of district two, and I work in District 10.

Um I take classes at Free City, my roommate takes classes through Free City, my co-workers take classes through Free City.

I've made friends and professional connections through City College.

Free City gave me access to one of the most mutually supportive and community-oriented classes I've ever taken.

It's called Poetry for the People, and it's one of the best classes ever.

Um I work and take classes at City, and for me, City College is my main access to a creative environment.

Daniel Lurry and the people proposing cuts to City College don't understand that when I sign up for dance classes, there's physically not enough space in the apartment that I pay rent at in San Francisco to dance freely.

These are real living and breathing people telling you that we need this money for our education.

And for the supervisors in front of me, whether you platform on public safety or sobriety or revitalizing downtown, uplifting small businesses, you cannot platform yourself on these things and in the same breath cut education.

You can't claim to care about sobriety and remove people's access to intellectual stimulation, creative expression, community, and ability to learn and excel in a trade.

You can't platform yourself on stopping crime and then cut funds to a main source to a main resource that uplifts people out of the circumstances that lead to crime.

It's disrespectful to your constituents that we even have to show up and ask for access to education.

Please do the right thing and fund city college.

Thank you.

Thank you, Lisa.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker.

Yes, good afternoon.

Thank you for allowing us the chance to speak.

Uh my name is Diana Chong.

I live in the tenderline and am a recipient of Free City.

As a former patient and client with two of San Francisco's mental health rehabilitation programs, what Free City has given me is the bravery and confidence to fully incorporate myself back into society.

We were given workforce opportunities after our rehab programs, but what those what those have shown me is that nothing has changed.

For me, it only made me want to hide back into isolation.

Because of Free City and only because of Free City, I feel that for the first time in my life, I am exactly where I need to be.

Free City is our future.

Free city makes possibilities.

Thank you.

Thank you, Majina Trump.

Next speaker.

Good evening, everyone.

My name is Kelly Marie Nieva, and I'm a San Francisco native and resident.

I'm here today in support of protecting and continuing funding for Free City.

In a city like San Francisco, where the gap between wealth and poverty continues to grow, access to higher education is not a luxury, it is a necessity.

Programs like Free City give working class, transitional and people simply rebuilding their lives, including immigrants, first-generation students, parents, and elders, a real opportunity to continue their education without tuition costs becoming another barrier.

My future began at City College.

CCSF gave me the push start and resources I needed to navigate, not just educationally, but mentally as well.

It gave me community, confidence, and direction during important and unsure moments in my life.

I am currently preparing to go to Ghana through an educational opportunity connected to City College through the Emoja program, something that once may have felt like a stretch, but now feels like a reflection of what CCSF has made possible for me.

Free City removes the cost barrier that keeps so many San Franciscans from pursuing college, job training, and long-term career growth.

As we work towards rebuilding and strengthening San Francisco, we must also support the advancement of working class, transitional, and people simply rebuilding their lives.

With the cost of living and overhead in this city, higher education can feel out of reach without programs like this.

Free city is not a handout.

It is a necessary investment in people who are trying to stabilize, grow, and contribute back to their communities.

As a young adult without much living family support, I had to learn how to stabilize and support myself early on.

CCSF gave me the foundation, resources, lifelong connections, and mentors I needed to move forward.

If I had to pay out of pocket, I would not have been able to prioritize the cost of my education during this time in my life.

I am here today to also advocate for others in similar circumstances who deserve the same access and opportunities.

At a time when so many people across San Francisco are struggling with housing costs, economic instability and thank you much, Kelly Marianne, before addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Gracias por su tempo.

Thank you for your time and for letting me speak.

My name is Guillermina Castellanos.

I am co-director of the Day Laborer here at San Francisco.

El City College para las trabajadoras del OG van Escuela Tomar classes de English.

For the last 40 years I have been sitting seeing this fight for Free City College.

Free City College is vital for the female workers who work domestically and go to city college to learn English.

English classes are necessary for the female domestic workers because this is the only way that they have to negotiate better pay, better hours and get a fair treatment with their employer.

I mean me gustaria uno de usar mañana donde miles de students the persistent I would like for you to go tomorrow to see the thousands of and hundreds of students who are graduating psychology programs all because of City College.

Oakland in Oakland's Oracle at Oracle at Oracle Bowl Oracle Stadium, they will be graduating hundreds of students who have graduated psychology programs all because of City College College, one of the young professionals who will be graduating tomorrow is my daughter she will be graduating psychology and her future would not be possible if it wasn't for City College City College is vital to our community and it is vital for my children and for all of us you must restore it.

Thank you.

And thank you much for your comments next speaker.

Hello my name is Peace Chung and I am currently a student at CCSF and my physics major my connection with Free City first started when I actually first lost my home I was working like three jobs and sleeping on a corner of like a living room I began going to free city from that point on because I wanted a better future for myself I then went through the trade program where I met many other individuals such as myself that was struggling with housing issues as well as many other issues that were stated previously I wanted to mention this because after I was after I went through the trade program I be I was able to work the trade where I then found my passion to go into mechanical engineering.

Tomorrow I graduate and I will be transferring for that degree.

And I just wanted to let you all know that this uh free city program was the only reason why I am able to make that step.

So please restore funding to Free City and know that every choice you make impacts not just one person but several others.

Thank you much, please child.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, please.

I think that was about maybe 10-15 seconds of me speaking in manner and Chinese.

And for folks here that I want to highlight that as an experience that immigrant students come in in a classroom of not understanding maybe what peers and teachers are seeing at the moment.

And I want to also use that to highlight what this cut further excludes our immigrant and documented and students with mixed statuses.

Just last year, CCSS Students for Justice, along with many student members, were advocating for full back funding of 19 million.

I want us to remember the agreement with the city was 19 million for city college.

That went down to 11, and now this year down to 6.5 million.

And we were talking about how as students we still had this dire need for transportation and child care.

And now we're talking about taking away grants, and that's an important, important price.

When students come up here and say, this $5.5, I'm easy either buying a sandwich or using it for transportation.

And when you're taking away the free city grant away, it seems like a small amount of money, but that is a big decision for someone to say this school is no longer for me.

And I think the many students above me show in front of me show that this city is built by free city students, and the free city students are inherent inherently the people that understand the intersection of these struggles the most that are going to build the city to be that prominent, to be that example of the state of the nation.

So do not cut students short during budget cut.

Do not cut your student short, do not cut your future short.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker, please.

I'm somehow less interested in the weight and convolutions of Einstein's brain than in the near certainty that people of equal talent have lived and died in cotton fields and sweatshops.

And Free City is a program that can answer the question implied by that quote.

People that would have no opportunity to get their education, like peace, my classmate.

They're gonna go forward and graduate.

I have classmates that are going to Stanford and Berkeley.

These are gonna be leaders of this country, and they're gonna be people that bring back rewards to San Francisco.

They're not people that just come here and live for five or ten years and move away and use it as a playground.

They're people that really care about the city and they need this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Marsh Daniel.

Next speaker.

Um I wrote Fran Smith on the card, as I am known.

Um I didn't, I was not prepared.

Um, but I just wanted to say this.

Free City, as you have seen, has affected so many people, myself included.

I had the privilege to be so many people, some people may think it's not that big of a deal, but it is a big deal.

I had the privilege to be the school mascot for the past um since 2018.

And I thank you, and I recently retired.

Um, but the reason I'm bringing this up is because being the mascot, you have to be a people person.

And I love the people at my school.

City college is my school, it's your school too, and you need to take care of it.

And Connie, we met, we met before, and I have every faith in you to do what is right.

And I'm really angry.

I'm really, really angry that the city of San Francisco that I grew up in, that I financially support District 11 is not taking care of its people.

We are its people.

You're its people too.

And you have to collectively make this work.

This is our school.

This is our school.

This is our city, and we have to take care of the people who take care of the city.

I take care of the city.

And everyone else does too.

So that being said, please stop cutting funding to the school in every aspect.

Because it all matters.

We've lost so many great instructors and counselors and people who care about and want to support the people who come through the school and want to support the city and make this a better city.

So we ask.

Thank you.

Alright, I'm ready.

I am Evangela Brewster, a district 10 native.

Free City is my lifeline.

I am a business major.

I want to say thank you to each and every professor, both current and retired, faculty administration, and City College of San Francisco to all my classmates, students as a whole, who came out in the middle of finals, finals.

Okay.

Thank you.

And for all of the other students who weren't able to make it, we understand.

Supervisors, is it or is it not your job to make sure that barriers are broken?

That's what Free City does.

If you cannot find the money, uh let's just text the millionaires and billionaires, make sure that they do their fair share.

So Free City stays alive.

Um here we are, not even a complete nine years after the program has started when the voters said yes to this program, and you're not only asking, but you're cutting free city.

That's unacceptable.

This program is trying to be recreated in other cities and states across the country.

But let's be clear.

If it gets cut here, you think they're gonna be able to do that?

No, they're not.

I just want to make it, I just want to make it clear.

Our free city budget, leave it alone.

It was cut last year by half.

You guys are trying to cut it again by a third.

Y'all are the ones who talk to Mayor Lurie probably day to day.

Make sure our voices is heard, and I want to make it clear.

I know you said that you were gonna lose quorum, right?

We understood that, we respected that, and I appreciate everybody for speaking up and who didn't, you just came and sat in a room with us.

We appreciate you.

But let me make it clear, I want each and every supervisor to hear this to watch it.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Evangela Brewster.

Addressing this committee.

And before I start to talk about this next speaker, we are doing last call on public comment.

So if you haven't addressed this committee and you wish to do so, please line up.

Otherwise, this will be our final speaker.

And with that.

Thank you.

My name is Heather Brandt.

I am D11, born and raised.

I'm the current student chancellor and former student trustee at CCSF.

I'm a first-generation college student, a system impacted working student parent, a mother of three, a caregiver for my spouse who is currently battling cancer, as well as my aging parents, including my mother who has Alzheimer's dementia.

Free City did not make college accessible for me.

It made leadership opportunity and stability possible for my entire family.

My brother is a CCSF graduate who now runs his own business here in SF.

My spouse also graduated from CCSF, becoming a journeyman here in the city through local 39, and has held a union job for nearly 20 years because of the opportunities that CCSF created.

My own leadership journey is directly tied to Free City.

Last year I was one of only three students in California to receive a statewide student leadership award from the Board of Governors.

That recognition was only possible because of CCSF and free and because Free City invested in students like me.

I want you to know my story is not unique.

I am not the exception, I am the rule.

This year alone, I know a student leader transferring to UCLA whose parents graduated from CCSF and whose father serves this city as a firefighter near Ocean Campus.

Another student leader who is just as impacted, a cancer survivor in recovery, transferring to George Washington University on a full scholarship.

These are the lives free city changes.

Please fully fund Free City and continue investing in the future of SF.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I want to express my uh gratitude and appreciation for everyone who uh spending the afternoon and evening with us and and your your valuable time and sharing your voices.

Um I myself, I just want to be crystal clear that I am a beneficiary of City College.

Uh, whether when I was in high school from Galileo attending uh City College to make sure that I get some credit, or why I was attending UC Davis and back to San Francisco for my part time job to support my family in my earlier years.

Um, without CCSF, wouldn't have my educational success, and and so I deeply understand that how CCSF is impacting uh San Franciscans.

Um, also with District 11, uh City College is in the corner of District 11, and district 11 has the highest number of students uh enrolling in city college.

You know, whether um for city college, I think whether you are a high school student, you are just a recent graduate of a high school and a young adult, or whether it's my senior constituents and telling me how important those uh classes at City College is giving them not alone, that they have their community.

Um, free city college is truly an asset and an opportunity for San Franciscans to have a fighting chance to survive and to thrive in the city of San Francisco.

I actually have some questions about uh the funding, uh, the cut.

I know that PopW is a transfer tax, and we are seeing a projection of like, you know, we're doing much better in transferring text and and why is Free City College is still being considered a cut.

Is it anyone able to come and give me a little context about why are we having this conversation to begin with?

Because we are seeing more money, more transfer tax.

I know that like the mayor's office should be here to answer that questions, but how about we let's have like city college in San Francisco to sort of kind of talk a little bit about the agreements between the city and with City College about the MOU and how actually it's facilitated.

I see that trustee, thank you, trustee Christy.

Thanks for being here.

I'm I think we both know well, but I'm gonna defer to you to answer that question so instead.

Yes, and so I'll wear a little bit of my previous uh role at DCYF as a free city analyst.

And so I think that the question is why is there a proposed cut specifically?

Um, I don't know.

I think in the conversations at the Oversight Committee, it's a part of the overall cuts that the mayor's office is proposing.

How they arrived at the 6.5 million specifically has not been clear in conversations that we were having at the Oversight Committee.

It seems like the mayor's office's perspective is that we can potentially preserve just the waivers for the program.

So that's only if you are a San Francisco resident, you would receive the tuition waiver and to essentially eliminate the cut for the grant students.

But even with the 6.5, Dr.

Liggioso, I believe that even the 6.5 is not sufficient for the tuition waivers itself, too.

So how they arrived at that number is unclear to us.

And I just, you know, now with today's hearing, I'm clearly seeing that the voter vote on it to make sure that we have free city college.

And then I think the board supervisors and the trustees supports this, and also AFT 2121 supports this.

And our students in San Francisco clearly clearly clearly they we need this free city college program.

Yes, and and I also my understanding is that the 10 years MOU included a reserve to ensure that cuts like this do not surprise city college and especially to our students.

What happened to those reserve funds?

Um I am going to make sure the controllers comes back here.

And just to build on some of the questions.

So the MOU agreement was a tenure agreement.

Um the uh MOU was subject to budget appropriations on an annual basis, but um originally the program was estimated about 15 million per year plus CPI.

And yes, there was language that was built in into that agreement around the reserve.

And so if the program, I'm just remembering off the top of my head, if the program exceeded one year's worth of cost, anything above that would go back into the city's general fund.

And um that the intent of the reserve was to build a runway of some sort if the city ever decided to eliminate funding for the program.

And that was the intent of it.

Um I don't know how it was ultimately utilized or where the reserve is exactly.

Um, it might be in the audit report and looking to Alisa to maybe provide context.

The oversights committee.

I yes, thank you.

I do, I mean, I think it it may fall to the controller's office to fully explain this, but I think as members of the oversight committee, and I know the administration has been doing a lot of work to try to put that together.

Um, it is this year we just got the audit reports, and it is clear this year that we have been told that the reserves have been decimated and are pretty much gone.

Um, so those a lot of that money seems to have gone back to the city for to balance the budget in general.

Um, and so but we're we've been trying to get some clarity about that and about how that works, and as President Chiste said, this idea that we had a program with a commitment for 10 years that also had had some things locked in to try and make sure that exactly what is happening now didn't happen, that there would be you know backup funds, that there would be a runway if changes were made, all of those pieces, that unfortunately is no longer the case.

Thank you.

Um just just to close.

I will love to follow up on those numbers.

Um I know myself, and I also know that uh one of the members, um Supervisor Salter also took advantage of City College and and took classes uh about Cantonese, and I think he also understands how important uh um how important and how valuable City College is and i would really uh want to uplift that um you know this is our city is sending a message that uh if we cut continue to cut education, cut workforce development, that we are sending a clear message to the rest of the city and and and put potentially california and and and the country saying that we are not able to afford to care about our future generations thank you chair chan vice chair dorsey thank you chair chan um last saturday i went to the um addiction and recovery counseling certificate program graduation that was really moving and it was the largest classes i understand it 42 graduates which is the largest I think in its history um I know that there that is also facing some state cuts that I've made a commitment that I'm gonna do everything I can to fight for I'm powerfully persuaded by what was uh said here although you probably didn't need to persuade me because I'm a believer that this is money well spent so I think you're gonna have a lot of allies on this uh committee trying to do what we can to restore funding thank you vice chair dorsey and thank you supervisor chin um I'm gonna answer a little bit since I don't see the controllers uh gonna return anytime soon I'm gonna uh I'm gonna say this as budget committee chair that um I believe you know during last two three fiscal years whenever the mayor wanted to cut um city college I think the free city college oversights committee have fought that cut um and uh along with the trustee uh of city college actually come they they actually came here along with former chancellor David Martin and then now I believe and I'm grateful that uh chancellor uh masina uh appear today and that we actually now finally have this hearing I think as some of us may recall three fiscal years ago it was not until almost post um budget uh process at the board of supervisors that we recognized that there was actually a cut to um free city uh and it seems to be uh at that time was rather late uh by the time that uh it brought to our attention um and I think that it was because of that I I began to join free city college oversights committee to really make sure that we start that process early on to ensure the cut does not occur I think that conversation is still ongoing for this two upcoming um budget we want to see fully restore funding um to nine million for the very least and that I think that there gotta be conversation also around the MOU to also to be inclusive of like student fee waivers because two years ago we also uh allocated the reserve two million dollars of the reserve to actually waive some of the fees I think as some of us may recall um and I think that instead of of that doing that back and forth we should just be updating the MOU to include fee uh just to be waived and to be included into um the reimbursements for free city college um all which is to say thank you I'm so appreciate the commitment uh from this body and now we have three out of out of the five and I am confident supervisor walton will be joining us in support of making sure we fight back the cuts to free city college um so I appreciate that and so with that thank you and uh I would like to make the motion to have this uh hearing heard and filed um second by vice chair dorsey and a roll call please oh and but before we do that I would also like to excuse um supervisor walton and supervisor Danny Souter uh without objection and the roll call on that motion to have this item heard and filed and on that motion by Chair Chan seconded by vice chair Dorsey that this hearing be heard and filed.

And Vice Chair Dorsey.

And Dorsey, aye.

Member Chen.

Chen, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes and and then I would like to make the motion to continue items one through three to our June.

Should we do the is it date certain or like how do we include it into the next um budget process?

It is your choice whether or not to keep the hearing uh regarding the proposed budget for the select departments open.

And uh we can actually continue it all to the call of the chair, so we can place that on the second round agenda.

Understood.

So we will uh heard and file item one and then continue item two and three to call chair.

Understood.

A motion to heard and file item one and then continue to item two and three to the call chair.

Um second by vice chair Dorsey, a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, that the hearing in item one be heard and filed and that we continue the uh both the appropriation ordinance and salary ordinance for the selected positions uh to the call of the chair, vice chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member Chen, Chen, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I actually uh I'm sorry, I will need a vote to rescind.

Uh we have yet to do public comment on those items.

I see.

Thank you.

My apologies to resend uh the vote on items one to three.

A roll call, please.

Okay.

Uh and on the motion to rescend the vote on the items one through three.

Oh, yes.

And second and aye.

Thanks.

Dorsey, aye.

Uh member Chen.

Chan, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And then um, and let's go to public comments for items one through three.

Yes, we are now opening public comment for these items one through three.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding the budgets for selected committees, specifically the airport, board of appeals, department of building inspection, planning, child support services, environment, law library, mta, port, public library, the PUC, the rent board or retirement system.

Now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to uh make the motion to have items one heard and file and continue items two to three um to the call chair, second.

Um second by vice chair Dorsey, a roll call, please.

And on the motion by Chair Chan, Secretary Vice Chair Dorsey that we hear and file our item number one, and that we continue the appropriation ordinance and salary ordinance to the call the chair, vice chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye, member chen.

Chen I, Chair Chan.

I chan I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And I know that we have yet to dispose items four and five.

So with that, I would like to move item four and five to full board with recommendation.

Second, second by vice chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

Excuse me.

Is it too late for the public comment for one to three?

Okay.

Yes, the gap went done.

Apologies.

Uh and on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, uh to forward uh items four and five to the full board.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Member Chen, Chen, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us today?

Uh Madam Chair to concludes our business.

The meetings adjourned.