Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the June 17, 2026 meeting of the budget and appropriation committee.

I am Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, and members supervisors Danny Sauter and Shaman Walton.

President Rafael Mandelman will be joining us shortly.

Our clerk is Bretton Haliba.

I would like to thank Jamie Avercherry from SFGov TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clark, do you have any announcement?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

And should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, they should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

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

When your vice 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.

Um 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.org 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 be good at place, room two forty-four, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, hacked uh items acted upon and referred out of committee today are expected to appear with the first appearance of the budget on the full board of supervisors agenda of July 14th, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And um, we call the items on today's agenda.

First that these are actually what we identify as trailing legislation, which actually uh typically goes with the budget.

Uh it means that any amendments to the legislation is a conversation with the mayor and um and his budget office and team.

Um and it will require a conversation and agreement to come to amend these legislation.

That with that also is each item will also be allowed for public comment and has indicated that today uh with this committee the public comment is limited to one minute.

Um, and of course, for those item that has budget and legislative analyst report, as usual.

We will have department presentation first, followed by the budget and legislative analysts.

Then we'll we'll have questions and comments from this body, then we will proceed to public comment.

Um, and so with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code to extend through June 30th, 2027 the waiver of certain first year permit license and business.

Oh, sorry.

Um is that right?

I'm sorry, one second.

Leave that in the wrong notes.

It is.

It is an ordinance awarding the business and tax regulations goes to extend through June 30th, 2027, the waiver of certain first year permit license and business registration fees for specified small businesses that newly form or that opening new location.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk, and uh would like to welcome uh Supervisor Steven Sherrow to the chamber and joining this committee, and you're welcome to have your remark.

Well, good morning, um colleagues.

Thank you, Chair Chan, uh Vice Chair Dorsey, committee members for hearing this item today.

Um, this ordinate extends ordinance extends the uh the city's first year free program, which is set to expire on June 30th, after which new small businesses uh will face significant cost increases when attempting to open new storefronts in the city.

Um I introduce this ordinance because I believe it's vital uh that we extend the program.

Investing in our small businesses not only helps our merchant corridors and economy, but injects life and vibrancy into our neighborhoods citywide.

Um, as of June 15th, this program has helped over 14,000 enrolled businesses so far.

This is a key part of our post-pandemic success, and it really is injecting that life into our merchant corridors.

Um, extending first year free is not just about waiving fees, it's it's really it's bigger than that.

It's about sending a message that we here in City Hall are a partner for business owners who are helping to drive San Francisco's economic recovery.

So, colleagues, I hope to have your support in sending this item to the full board of supervisors, but before we do so, uh I'm hoping to have a clarifying non-substantive amendment added to the file.

This amendment uh which has been circulated with you electronically prior to the meeting, uh, although I have some copies here, um, will give the city flexibility when extending the first year free program specifically.

The amendment allows the city to extend the first year free program to either next June 30th, 2027, or until the treasurer and tax collector notifies the board that all funds have been drawn down.

Now that's a critical clarification because obviously we have a budget process coming up, but there is also more money remaining from last year.

So the goal obviously would be to extend it further to get more money for a full year next year, but would also be to use the money that we currently have so that businesses who apply on July 1st, July 2nd can still take advantage of that.

Um this ordinance solely gives the city the legal authority to extend the program.

Um now obviously it's now on us to decide to invest in the program, invest in our small businesses and invest in our continued economic recovery.

Um when we make it easier to start, stay and grow a business here.

We're investing in the future of neighborhoods, workforce, and our city as a whole.

Um I know I have the support of several colleagues here, and I look forward to working with all of you to invest in this critical program that has helped thousands of our chairs small businesses.

So, colleagues, I hope to have your support in these technical amendments today and to move forward this authorizing legislation to the full board of supervisors.

Um thank you again, Chair Chan, and to all the committee members.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor, would you like to uh brief out loud the technical amendments before we'll go to the BI?

Sure, thank you.

I appreciate the opportunity to do so.

Excuse me here briefly.

Don't quite have my notes organized.

Sorry, here I've got a miss.

Where are we?

Okay, if we go to the fifth page, um, line one, um starts with the waiver of fees provided by this section 76.3 shall expire by operation of law, and this is the addition on the earlier of July 1st, 2027, or two days 30 days, excuse me, after the Office of the Treasury and Tax Collector provides written notice to the Board of Supervisors that all funds appropriated to reimburse departments for the waivered fees have been expended.

Those uh two lines, July 1st, 2027 or 30 days after all fees have been expended would replace um previous text that says that it expires at the end at the end of the day on June 30th, 2026.

Um further, no permit fees, initial license fees, etc.

filed on or after, and this is new.

The date of the fee waiver under this section 76.3 expires as provided in the previous sentence.

As of December 31st, 2028, the city attorney is authorized to cause this section 76.3 to be removed from the business and tax regulations code.

Thank you.

Item one is an ordinance that uh amends the business tax regulations code to extend the first year free program uh through June 2027 or until funds appropriate for the program run out.

This program waives uh fees for new businesses or uh businesses that open new locations in San Francisco that generate less than five million dollars in grocery seats in San Francisco.

Uh the with the window, the treasurer tax collector um would coordinate with our other city departments to stop uh enrolling uh new businesses in the program starting next next fiscal year.

Uh, and as we describe on page three of the report, so there's two point five million dollars appropriated for the program in this year, about two point four million has already been spent as of June 1st uh 2026.

So there's less than a hundred thousand dollars left in that authority.

However, there are businesses that have already qualified for the program but have not obtained all their fee waivers to so to ensure that there's funding to do so.

OEWD is transferring uh commercial vacancy tax revenues to uh the first year fee program uh in an amount of about eight hundred and eighty thousand dollars to basically pay for the fee waivers for businesses that are already in the pipeline uh and some of those waivers will not come due until next fiscal year.

That money uh was never programmed, so it's not defunding any uh small business program.

Uh we also note as a policy consideration that the average fee waiver is about eleven hundred dollars per business.

Um I think in a budget neutral way that the board could accomplish a similar goal would be to move the due dates for fees um for new businesses so that they have time to generate working capital to pay the fees um perhaps six to twelve months after the fees are due, uh, but still pay the fees to the city because otherwise it costs the general fund probably over three million dollars if you to fully fund this program next year, but we do recommend approval of item one.

Thank you.

And so with that, we'll go to I don't see any name on the roster.

Let's go to public comments on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for this item number one.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Uh, and thank you, Supervisor Cheryl, for bringing this to us.

Um, I will be supporting this.

I think it's a good idea to uh give us some flexibility here.

Uh, I know there's work to be done to sort out the funding source uh as we seek to extend this to June 30th, 2027.

Um, and I trust that uh supervisor Cheryl and OEWD and mayor's office and so forth will partner to identify that funding source.

Um, but I do think this is really important.

Um, you know, it's it's a really uh nice, um sometimes it's a surprise, sometimes people know about it, but it's a really nice thing for businesses to um to have right off the bat, and it's a great way for us to I think set the tone that this is a should be a partnership between the city and small businesses in our in our merchant corridors uh and I think this is a very emblematic program of that of that spirit.

So I'll be supporting it.

Thank you.

And so with that, like to move to amend the item as indicated, um, both the amendment for the timeline through June 30th, 2027 and adding um to until the earlier of June 30th, 2027, or all funds appropriated to reimburse departments for the waive fees have been expended, and that's for the long title, and also adding retroactivity throughout.

Um, so with that amend it a motion.

Thank you.

Second by Vice Chair Dorsey, um to amend the item, a roll call, please.

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

That we amend this ordinance as so written to the record by the supervisor and that we refer this ordinance to the July 14th board with recommendation as amended by Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mandelman, Madeline absent, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have four eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, if I understand correctly, this is gonna be if we to move this item to full board with recommendation, it will be July 14th.

July 15th.

That's a churling legislation with the budget.

That is correct, Madam Chair.

It'll be July 14th with the first appearance of the budget.

Thank you.

And so with that, colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommend amended item to full board with recommendation on July 14 and second by Vice Chair Dorsey at a roll call, please.

And on that motion, that we refer this ordinance to the July 14th full board.

Has amended.

Fly Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Sauder, aye, Member Walton.

Walton I, Member Mentleman, Mentleman absent, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I, we have four eyes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a resolution authorizing the San Francisco Public Library to accept and expend the grant and the amount of up to 1.5 million in in-kind gifts, services, and cash monies from the Friends of the San Francisco Public Library for direct support for the Chinatown branch renovation capital project within the period of fiscal years 2026 to 2027 through June 29th.

Oh, sorry, through 2029 to 2030.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have our Mr.

Librarian here.

Welcome.

Thank you so much.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisors Walton, and Supervisor Souter.

Thank you for the opportunity to present the library's FY2728 proposed accept and expend for funds raised by the Friends and Foundation of the San Francisco Public Library in support of the major renovation of the historic Chinatown Hem Mark Lie branch library.

I'm joined today by members of the library's leadership team, Marine Singleton, our Chief Operating Officer, and Mike Fernandez, our CFO.

Next slide, please.

As has long been the practice for the library's major capital projects, the Friends provide critical funding for furnishings, fixtures, and equipment, helping us to deliver the high-quality, welcoming public spaces our community has come to expect in all of our neighborhood libraries.

Their commitment of up to 1.5 million dollars for this renovation project continues that tradition of partnership and investment.

I know this project is near and dear to our district three supervisor Sauter, and we are excited and looking forward to breaking ground later this fall once the winning construction firm has been identified to take on this project.

During the construction library service in Chinatown will continue uninterrupted from our temporary lease space at 950 Grand Avenue, ensuring we maintain vital access to library resources and services.

Next slide.

In closing, I want to once again express appreciation to the entire Board of Supervisors for your continued support on behalf of San Francisco's residents and all of our library users.

This legislation plays a key role to ensure that the Chinatown branch renovation has all the funding resources needed in place to deliver for the community.

Thank you for your time and consideration today.

We're more than happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Uh I don't see any names on the roster.

We will go to public comments on this item.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Emily Garvey, and I am the executive director of Friends of the San Francisco Public Library.

Thank you for your consideration of this item today.

Friend stands by ready to organize and galvanize community support for this critical project as our single most accessible and welcoming public service in the city with doors open seven days a week.

It is critical that our spaces are all doing the maximum that they can for our community and providing funding for furniture fixtures and equipment that make these spaces warm and welcoming, flexible, and useful to our community makes great sense, and we are ready to do so.

Thank you much, Emily Garvey.

And seeing no other speakers in the queue, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public commons, Papa Common is now closed.

And um Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I just want to express my excitement and support for this.

Uh, it's um, you know, something we're all looking forward to in the neighborhood, and it's a good library now, but it's gonna be a great library after these renovations, um, and thanks as well to the friends uh and and all the folks who have put forward um their dollars to support uh investments like this in our neighborhoods.

Um it really really makes a difference and I look forward to the groundbreaking in the fall.

Absolutely, and also uh thank you to the public library for the temporary space.

I think that's really important to have the foresight to understand that during the construction um we want to keep those services running and have a place for people to go.

So we'll also have the temporary library open on Grand Avenue.

Um, and so with that, I would like to ask that we uh send this item to the full board with recommendation.

Roll call on that motion, please.

And on that motion by Margaret Sauter, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Can we refer this resolution to the July 14th full board with a recommendation?

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey I.

Member Sauter.

Walton, I.

Member Mandelman.

Aye.

We have four eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call items three through five together.

Item numbers three through five.

Amending the health code to set patient rates for services provided by the Department of Public Health for fiscal years 2026 to 2027 and 2027 to 2028.

Item number three amends the health code to set such patient rates and services.

Item number four amends the administrative code to increase certain utility meter fees and authorize the controller to annually adjust device fees for weights and measures and utility meters up to the maximum allowable under state law.

And item number five authorizes the acceptance and expenditure of recurring state grant funds by the San Francisco Department of Public Health for fiscal year 2026 to 2027.

Thank you, Vice Chair.

Welcome to the committee.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey.

I have a combined presentation for all pieces three pieces of legislation.

I'll start off with our health code patient rate legislation.

Every year the department amends our patient rates.

And this year it's for the upcoming two-year budget cycle.

The primary purpose of setting our competitive rates is to ensure adequate compensation from commercial insurance companies.

This is ensuring that we're maximizing revenue from Medicare, Medical, and private insurance.

The department, the majority of DPH's revenue is reliant on external revenue, and this helps us in normal years, aside from HR1, to minimize general fund um revenue to the extent possible.

We do have two programs in place to ensure that patients remain protected from unexpected medical bills, and the ordinance waives are it gives us the ability to waiver reduce the fees charged per these rates for folks who meet eligibility requirements under our financial assistance programs, including charity care and discount payment programs.

We took an analytical approach this year, working with the controller's office performance unit and engaged with a consultant HMA to review our patient rates to develop a model for factoring in, managed care, market rate, and other cost considerations.

Sorry, benchmark rates, and then as well as changes to our physical health, specialty mental health, and uh other rate schedules in alignment with either medical fee schedules based on CPI or other Medicare rates.

So that's the first piece of legislation.

The second is an admin code fee amendment to our weights and fees measures.

This is a cleanup uh piece of legislation related to water and vapor submeter fees.

We cleaned up our environmental um uh fees last year, and these were two that were missed.

Uh we are bringing these in alignment with state and local fee structures, and the ordinance includes an inflationary factor for future years in alignment with the controller's office CPI for fees uh with all other of our environmental fee rates.

And then I'm gonna move on to the third.

Our accept and expend grants for reoccurring state grants.

We are requesting board approval for reoccurring state grants, which the admin code allows us to do rather than through separate AE resolutions.

This is for about eighty-five million dollars of state and federal pass-through grants that support a session essential ongoing public health services.

This ensures that we have timely responsiveness to the state grants.

Um the bulk of these grants are from the California Department of Public Health, almost $25 million.

Department of Healthcare Services at almost $27 million and nearly $15 million for mental health supported grants.

For example, this includes $10 million for next year for our behavioral health bridge housing grants that support interim housing, rental assistance, tiny homes, other bridge housing.

Another example is our SABG grants, our substance abuse prevention and treatment block grants.

That's for nine million dollars that will support a broad array of alcohol and other drug treatment programs and prevention services within our system of care.

With that, we respectfully request your approval and I'm here to answer any questions.

And I also have my team with me, in case it's specificity that I don't quite know at hand.

Thank you.

I don't see any name on the roster.

Uh we'll go to public comments on this item.

Yes, we're now opening public comment for these items three through five.

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

Thank you.

And seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, this has been a uh routine, these have been an annually routine uh rate um hearing.

It's important.

Um, but uh I so I appreciate a work, um, but we will move these three items to full board with recommendation.

Second, second by Vice Chair Dorsey and uh roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey to refer all three items to the full board.

On the July 14th, meeting of the full board.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey Aye, Member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mattelman, Mattelman absent, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have four ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item six and seven together.

Items six and seven.

Our ordinances amending the municipal elections code as follows.

Item number six increases the filing fee and per word fee for paid ballot arguments, and item number seven removes the requirement that the Department of Elections publish the legal text of ballot measures in the voter information pamphlet sent to voters before each election.

And to allow the director of elections to determine the format of the voter information pamphlet without the ballot simplification committee's approval.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have department of elections here.

Oh, thank you.

I believe that they are making their way up from the offices downstairs.

Um, in the meantime, Sophia Kittler from the Mayor's Budget Office speaking to table item number six.

Um we've had some good meetings with um a number of community groups, and at this point, the mayor's office would request that uh respectfully that you table item six, and we will revisit at a later date.

Thank you.

So we'll give him a couple minutes.

And we appreciate we appreciate the tabling um item number six, uh, which is uh fee uh escalation for the department.

Uh, but I do have some questions about the um voter information pamphlets and just kind of get some clarity on that.

Um, in that case, there you are.

Great.

Good morning.

Should I start on the number six or uh I think uh a mayor's office, uh Director Sophia Kittler has indicated that we will we will be tabling item six, and therefore we would appreciate uh presentation on item seven, specifically on the voter information pamphlets, so the proposed ordinance uh amending the mutual elections code is to remove the requirement that the Department of Elections publish the legal text of ballot measures in the voter information pamphlet sent to voters before each election, and to allow the director of elections to determine the format of the voter information pamphlet without the ballot supplication committee's approval.

Then the impact of the ordinance uh would be to remove the full legal text of associated associated with local ballot measures.

Uh it would reduce printing and mailing cost, uh reduce formatting and publication costs, which due to the fewer pages in the VIP, and then just the cleanup language to assign the formatting of the VIP to the director of elections.

Uh legal text for local measures will continue to be available on the department's website at the department's office by email, every public library branch, and upon request by email.

Uh just to give uh some some context.

So the average count of legal text in the in a VIP is 46 pages.

Um the average page count for the past uh four elections is been around 230 pages.

Then our budget is set uh with the 46 page reduction.

So our budget is set for a hundred and ninety-page VIP, and then the average cost for printing the legal text is around $330,000.

And from there I can take any questions.

Thank you.

And want to clarify VIP is Oh, voter information pamphlets.

The the book that everyone receives in the mail who received the physical copy before every election.

Thank you.

I actually also have some questions about that too.

Okay.

But Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So I I'm curious if there is going to be um a place on the record um where the in the legal text is captured for what was the what were the vo voters voting on that's not on paper, but it's preserved somewhere.

Um I will tell you in my own research, I often go to the um to the library's online version, even recently on Prop J or so you know, it's things like that to go look look at what what was the measure, what was there, and I often find myself pulling looking at the legal text of what what that was about.

Mostly because when I go to the administrative the website of the the administrative code or charter or whatever I'm looking at, it's sometimes hard to unpack the history of that.

Um so I'm sympathetic to trying to get the costs down for a big document and you know, but I'm just wondering is there going to be a version that is per preserved for the database and for those who don't know the the public library maintains the uh voter information pamphlet archive that goes back I think a century.

So it's phenomenal work if you ever doing legislative or legal research.

Um what would give me pause on this is losing a phenomenal research tool.

Um so I'm just curious how that would be what we're gonna be capturing somewhere.

Yeah, I agree.

I didn't think about that actually.

And what the remedy would be one quick remedy that comes to mind is uh to add, because we have to still create a printed a hard copy version of the legal text anyway.

So if we get a request by mail, we would we would send it to voters.

And also we have to provide uh copies to the libraries.

So and we provide the vote information pamphlets to the library after each election.

So that's so we there's already an exchange, a formalized exchange that occurs.

We can include a hard copy version of the legal text, and if you want to maybe add it as an amendment, that makes sense too, so it's not forgotten going forward.

Uh so that also gets included in the the posting of the vote information pamphlet on the library site.

Okay, great.

Supervisor's order.

Uh thank you, Chair Chan.

So I mean, this would remove the requirement to to publish the full legal text.

It is that then what you intend to do.

You intend to not publish the full legal text going forward?

Correct.

In the vote information pamphlet, we would still create we would still call collate and collect the legal text, and it would be posted on our website, which it is now before every election.

That would continue.

And then we would have still provide hard copies to the libraries, and then the the amendment allows for the mailing of the hard copy upon request from voters.

And what is the approximate savings you think this would result in?

Just applying cost from the previous four elections, the savings would be around three hundred and thirty thousand dollars per election.

Do you do you have any sense of other cities?

I mean is this is a standard to to include this or not include this what are other department of elections doing I have not canvassed other counties but uh the it's it's not it's not uncommon for legal text to be excluded from the pamphlets that are mailed to voters.

And when you say it would be available upon request what is that process what would that process look like?

Uh we could we could uh put information in the voter information pamphlet itself we could have information on the online uh voter information pamphlet I have link on our website someone just can uh uh fill out the information on their on the from the link and email it to us they could call us they could email us they could visit our office I mean have you contemplated maybe flipping that where you get this by default but you can opt out I think there's something else there's some other maybe within your department there's something else like that where you can opt out you can currently opt out from from this right from from the full packet but then I guess this would be a whole nother uh process but but uh what I'm what I'm saying is rather than uh putting it upon a resident a voter to request this do you let them opt out you know in some sort of cost environmental savings process.

Right I understand and we have an opt-out program for the physical VIP that we mail to voters.

And we've we've have undertaken this program to to offer the opt-out option for for many years and I think maybe up to I never less than 10% of voters have have actually responded to opt out.

So I think if we have another opt-out for legal text I don't know what the pickup would be but also then we are potentially creating two versions of the VIP if we were to go that route yeah yeah I think I I struggle with this a little bit because it's I think this is one of those things where probably the vast majority of people don't use this but there's probably 10 or 20% of the voters that really really do use this.

I mean that's um from what I've observed and from what I've heard uh you know on the campaign trail knocking on doors I mean people uh it's kind of a ritual for some for some folks where they sit down at the table they get all the information together um and I worry about you know I worry about um for for people that are get getting their ballot in another language uh if this makes it harder I worry about you know right now we're uh cutting digital access and then we're at the same time saying that we should put more of this online so I have some reservations on this.

I um I I do concur it somewhat that sentiment in a sense where um that I do know they're organized groups even house parties people get together and going through I mean it's what I love about San Francisco but I do also understand 330 thousand dollars of cost saving per election and potentially more if we have like special election it could easily come up to almost a million dollars of saving um per year per fiscal year.

So I think that colleagues unless we start to really have a very honest conversation uh about how do we fund the department of elections and that's also inclusive of the ballot measure fees that we just talked about that we just now that upon the request of the mayor has table to understand that even with the fees that was going to be um presented and and that you should we agree to it um it would still not be cost considered as cost recovery for the department elections now um I do think that it's worthwhile to fund uh from the city government's point of view to fund those costs so that we have providing uh easy access uh and both not just to uh file for ballot measure uh arguments, but to also have access of the text uh both online and in person so um it's a call so I think that we should actually have a conversation um not to just uh I I think that um director arts, I want to express my gratitude that you've been trying to actually figure this out and and how to create a system for cost recovery without coming to this body and to the city asking for more general fund to subsidize some of these.

But it sounds to me though, there seems to be a building sentiment, in my opinion, that this body is gonna have to recognize potentially that we need to fund some of these calls so that we can ensure we're not suppressing voters and that we're encouraging access for information for voters.

So I just wanted to put it out there that we also have to look within uh on not within, but like on this body, and then take it upon us to say, well, then are we going to champion for some of these calls and to fund uh what we are proposing as a mandate uh onto Director Art and his team at the Department of Elections?

President Mendelman.

Um Thank you, Madam Chair, for those comments.

I think I mean I I heard a little bit uh I'm sorry I had to step outside.

I heard a little bit about my uh from my colleagues uh supervisors uh Dorsey and Sauter uh who are celebrating our um small D democracy and supporting uh people gathering and and pouring over their voter handbooks.

And I think that is um beautiful.

The voter handbooks themselves are ginormous.

Um and we are printing them out, as the chair said, multiple times a year uh to support the civic activity, which is a good thing.

But if you think about all of the things that we are cutting right now, um, you know, for me, this is a reasonable uh proposal from the Department of Elections to uh reduce city costs.

And I think it, you know, is weighing kind of all the things that we're doing, and is this you know the most important use for this, you know, somewhere between $300,000 and a million dollars a year.

Um, you know, I think there's probably some things that any of us would come up with as higher priorities given that we are all carrying computers.

We are now we have been trained uh by uh by our our capitalist overlords to carry these little computers around with us at all times, that we all have access uh to uh to you know the online versions of these things.

I think it might be time to phase this out.

But I also sense that my colleagues are not completely comfortable with that.

So I don't know.

Back to you, madam chair.

No problem.

Um what I would say is now that let's go to public comments on these two items and then let's continue this conversation.

Uh clearly I want to say that we're gonna be tabling item six.

When you table an item, essentially is that it will not be brought up for any discussion throughout this budget process.

Um so the fee will remain.

Should we table uh this item in agreement?

It means that the fee will remain as it currently stands.

Um, and for item seven, uh again, is for as proposed by the department of elections is to move the portion of the legal text, not the entire thing, but just the legal text of any measure um online for uh online access only, and that the voters um information pamphlet, which I sometimes call the voter's guide, um, will still be mailed out to voters uh overall with the exception with removing the legal text of the measure, and that uh unless the voters decide to opt out for the hard copy, it will be mailed to them automatically still.

Um actually before we go to public comment, just one more thing.

I I do want to highlight this one thing that what I have noticed um in the last uh couple cycles of election is that there are actually voter guides out there are being designed uh being mailed out to voters uh purposefully had a similar design and layout as the official voter guy uh on a separate conversation.

I would like to circle back to kind of how do we mitigate issues like that when there are organizations out there to try to fashion their voter guys, uh not exactly the same, but almost in a similar design and graphic and layout as our own department of elections, and how do we either cease or desist letter from the department of elections or how how do we approach that?

I think it's a separate conversation with the Department of Elections and with our city attorney.

Not at the setting, but I just wanted to put it out there that that it's also on the back of my mind.

Again, the continuously harder, once you remove those legal texts, it's gonna be will it become harder and harder for voters to differentiate between what is official from the department of elections and then what is similarly for uh other political groups sending out a voters' guys.

So just just wanted to kind of a thought about the design about how do we identify and differentiate ourselves as a uh yourself as official voter voter information pamphlet.

So thank you.

And with that, we'll go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, we're now opening public comments uh on both these, well, on the tabling of item number six and the consideration of item number seven.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, uh good morning, Supervisor Chan.

Supervisor, I'm Heather Davies from D4.

CIS involvement in the ballot simplification committee is essential to ensuring that the summaries of pending legislation are presented clearly, accurately, and without any obfuscation.

Maintaining the full legal text of legislation is essential to an informed electorate and is the overall costs of democracy, just as paying to keep the lights on at City Hall and paying the supervisor's salaries.

I recommend that the city levy a tap on private donations to city services to offset these costs that are essential.

Thank you.

And thank you, Heather Davies.

Next speaker, please.

Eileen Boken, CSFN speaking on my own behalf, strongly opposing item number seven, including the proposed ordinance in the mayor's budget submittal as trailing legislation could be seen to be similar to Governor Newsom, Senator Wiener, and Assembly Member Wix using the state's budget process to gut CEQA in 2025 with budget trailer bills, SB 131 and AB 130.

Amending the VIP itself using the budget and trailing legislation process is more than questionable.

Eliminating the legal text from the VIP eliminates an easy way to cross-check the validity of paid ballot arguments, allowing the director of elections to format the VIP without approval of the ballot simplification committee eliminates yet another form of checks and balances.

Thank you.

Thank you, Eileen Bogan.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Sani Yangulo, uh founding member of the SF League of Pissed Off Voters, and who issued the following statement today.

We oppose the mayor's amendments to the elections code and this budget trailing legislation added at the last minute with a waived 30-day rule that will make our elections less democratic.

We have talked to thousands of San Francisco voters over 20 years of publishing our independent grassroots pissed-off voter guide.

And one of the most consistent things that we hear is that when people want to understand what these increasingly complicated measures do and how they will impact our communities, they turn to the full text in the voter information pamphlet for the most detailed neutral take.

Removing the full text at a time when unprecedented amounts of money are being poured into SF elections is ridiculous.

We also oppose increasing the ballot argument fees.

San Francisco elections should not be in the business of pay to play ballot arguments are an important part of our democracy and drastically increasing these fees because restrict voices to only the most wealthy, a disturbing trend we are witnessing in real time in our electoral process.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Sonny and Gulow.

Next speaker.

Last night at the Harvey Milk Democratic Club, Chris Arvin shared his SF election map site, which allows you to do interesting comparisons of the votes that happened in this most recent election, including comparisons with those um precincts with the highest average household income.

There was high correlation between the winners and uh very rich precincts.

And there was also a low turnout in those precincts that are um essentially already somewhat disfranchised.

I think we have to do everything we possibly can to create access to the democratic process.

It's really critical that we make the voter pamphlet guide accessible to all groups.

Um, three to seven hundred dollars is already pretty inaccessible for a lot of groups.

Um raising that to three to five thousand is just insane.

Um I saw that there was a proposal from the League of Women Voters to make a more reasonable increase that was correlated with inflation.

But jumping from uh two dollars to ten dollars is a five-fold increase.

But thank you much, Kristen Evans, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, I'm Michelle Moritz, a board member of the League of Women Voters of San Francisco, a nonpartisan nonprofit that empowers voters and defends democracy.

The league opposes in particular ordinance six um to increase filing fees for paid ballot arguments unless it's amended.

Supervisors, we sent a letter about this, but wanted to make a comment so everyone here understands what's at stake.

We support an update to these fees only to keep pace with inflation, but the ordinance doesn't stop there.

It would raise the fees to a thousand dollars per ballot argument plus ten dollars per word by 2030.

That's five times what groups are paying today.

Steep fee increases won't affect well-funded campaigns and wealthy individuals, but many San Francisco communities will be silenced.

The result will be a voter information pamphlet that includes only the voices of those who can afford it.

Any significant increase deserves real public discussion, not fast-tracked legislation.

Please this ordinance unless amended.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Michelle Martz.

Seeing no other people in line, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, uh Chair Chan.

I'm just curious, is there a time pressure on this that we would have to let me frame it this way?

If we were to continue this so that we could give some thought to, for example, an amendment that might make sure that we have a full version that's a PDF that's available electronically and we're gonna provide that it's preserved for posterity to the library or you know, re-rethink some of the opt-in, opt-out kinds of things.

Would that put you in a position where you're gonna now you're gonna eat the cost no matter what?

Like, are we are we running out of runway here in terms of your timing?

Operationally, no, there's still time.

Okay.

Fiscally, it's part of the budget process.

So it's sort of it's on the timer of the budget process more so than the operation timer.

So I don't know if in our budget has been set to include the reduction in cost for with the removal of the legal text.

So operationally, no, we have time.

Fiscally, it depends on the process that's that we're a part of today.

Supervisor Walton.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I want to thank Director Arts um for presentation and really understand you know, folks trying to make change that um could save the city money uh and also try to lead to more efficiency.

But I I do believe there's just been a lot of attempts to void democracy in the name of efficiency in the name of saving resources.

And I think these items, both of them are part of that, even with the best intentions.

I mean, we spend millions of dollars on many things, and I think it's very important that protecting democratic voice and the political process continues.

And so I couldn't support either one of these items as is uh and just wanted to make sure that I stated that for the record, but I I do understand some of why this will come forward, but this is not anything I could be supportive of.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so with that, thank you, Director Arts, uh, for your time and for your uh for your work on this.

Uh we appreciate it.

Um, and so with that, colleagues, um, and if I'm hearing this correctly, so first and and foremost, um, thank you to the mayor's office for suggesting tabling item six, uh, which we will I will make the motion to table item six.

Uh, what that means is that essentially um the fee will then remain as they currently exist.

And uh then I will also make the motion to so let's do a separate part, separately, second second by vice chair Dorsey, making the motion to table item six and a roll call, please.

And on a motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey that we table the ordinance and item number six, Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey I, Member Sauter, Sauter I, Member Walton, Walton, I, Member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And as for item seven, um, and as for item seven, uh, I would like to continue the item seven to the call chair, um, allowing further conversation about how we can best to approach this with this caveat colleagues.

Should we decide to not move forward with item seven, it does mean that we should work with um the mayor and the department of elections to ensure that either we have a supplemental of $330,000 uh for the upcoming election uh and the following election, probably it's not gonna happen in 2028, so that means the next budget year we have some time to think about um if how do we want to Otman department in the election?

Um, and I think that it warrants a conversation in advance of the mayor's proposed budget for chair-ling legislation.

Um, so I I urge everyone here to consider bringing this up perhaps sometimes in December for further discussion and further amendments before the mayor proposes upcoming budget to make sure that we inclusive of the funding for the voters' information pamphlets.

And so with that, I would like to make the motion to continue item seven to the call chair, second by vice chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

Actually, just to clarify, Madam Chair, um, is the intention to continue the ordinance beyond the budget process?

Yes.

Okay, very well.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey that we continue this ordinance to the call of the chair.

Moved by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey I, Member Sauter.

Sauter, I, Member Walton, Walton, I.

Member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And so with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call items eight and nine together.

Items eight and nine.

Our hearings on the administrative provisions contained in the proposed appropriation ordinance and those contained in the ASO respectively.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have our controllers here, controller's office here.

So, Chair Chan, uh, believe the BLA has a report on this, then they'll begin by presenting that to you.

You want to start with BLA report?

Yes, please.

Sure.

Item seven and eight are the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation and annual salary ordinance.

Uh so we review these every year for major changes uh with an eye towards uh how it shifts the role of the board uh in the budget process and other highlights.

So this report goes over those major changes, which I'll just list for you now.

It the uh in the AAO administrative provisions, section 11.27 adds a behavioral health services fund.

That's a requirement um of state law.

Uh section 12.10 allows the controller to conduct more frequent uh reviews of funds and accounts that have no activity and close them.

They already have that authority, but this would kind of loosen the uh parameters for those kind of reviews and allow them to take place more often.

And then section 32.2 creates an emergency housing revenue risk reserve for the RCDR Home Fund and the amount of ninety-eight million dollars to address any loss of federal funding for um programs funded by funded by the R C D RCDR home Fund, which itself is funded by the homelessness gross receipts tax revenue.

There is a typo in that section, and so we recommend correcting that typo, and we have recommendations on page six to that effect, which the controller agrees with.

And then on the administrative provisions for the annual salary ordinance, there are um just updates to the um labor inflation rates for positions assigned to Camp Mather and then HECH HECHI as well as um updated moving expense allowances for manager for classifications and above at MTA.

We recommend approval of both items.

Um regarding item section 1210 of the administrative provisions of the annual appropriation ordinance.

Um they don't the change wouldn't uh that was proposed in the mayor's um budget book would not increase the frequency of our reviews, it would um just give us a a way to align our systems with the code.

It would provide a with a process to bring to you um a proposal to eliminate code language where there's been no activity in uh a fund in that's been created in the code.

Um, the this is really kind of um an administrative idea to just align our systems where those are what we do in the system is largely governed by accounting standards and requirements.

We frequently eliminate um reconcile um expired projects um and clean out old accounts um that's an ongoing process.

Um anything that is appropriated with the mayor's budget, um, where there a project does have an existing balance and it's being um deappropriated within the mayor's budget, we do report that to you in the revenue letter um uh a list by project and by department and the balance that's assumed in the fund balance.

Um, for this measure though, I think um we would just recommend reverting to the existing language.

Um in either case, if there are any change to the code, it would come to you for your review and your approval.

Um so for the moment we are just recommending that we revert to the existing language uh that we've had and the provisions before this year.

Thank you.

I I'm fine with reverting uh the language, existing language.

I think overall the concern is just that when we close an account fund account to really ensure this body, this committee uh has uh the authority uh to not only know about it uh in advance, but also to there's a ways and means for this body for the committee to identify um more easily, um, and and to understand that when the mayor uh or or the controller close an account uh on a on any given funds that this body actually understand um the closure of that fund and being able to have the authority to discuss um the appropriation of the fund balance from the closure of that fund, um, or any type of activities.

So, I do not have if we're uh in agreement to revert back to the existing language.

I I I'm fine at the moment.

Um I may have some further thoughts, but for the for now, I think um I I am fine with that.

Uh and I don't see any other name of the roster.

Let's go to public comments on or do you have a further comments on item number nine?

Um no, that I don't.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And so with that, let's go to public comments on items eight and nine.

Yes, we're opening public comment on these items eight or nine.

If you have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding the hearings on the administrative provisions on both the AAO and the SO.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, uh public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, so I'd like to move items eight and nine.

Well, actually, do I need to amend item eight to revert back to the uh just to strike out the section um 12.10.

Uh Deputy City Attorney Brad Russia.

Yes, I think you should make the amendment recommended by the BLA, the typographical error, and then in section 12.10.

It's removing the second paragraph that's in that section.

Understood.

Um colleagues, I would like to make the uh amendment to item eight as uh indicated um and suggested by WD City Attorney Rasi, and um and would like to move items amended eight and item nine to full board on uh for what recommendation for the July 14 meeting.

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

Uh Madam Chair, uh just to just to clarify, uh the amendments we accepted would be um would be made on the AAO, and these are hearings regarding the administrative provisions of said AAO.

So we um so effectively you've just directed the uh controller to revert, and uh and as we go through this process, then they will have a a new version for me.

But otherwise the uh file and heard.

Yes, understood.

Um my apologies, colleagues, and uh like to, as indicated by Mr.

Clark, uh the motion is now um amended to having these two items eight and nine file and heard as hearing.

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

And on that motion that both hearings in items eight and nine be heard and filed, made by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter, Sauter aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mandelman, Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have five ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call items 10 and 11 together.

Yes, items 10 and 11.

See, item number 10 is a resolution concurring with the controller's establishment of the consumer price index for 2026 and adjusting the line access tax by the same right.

And item number 11 is an ordinance adopting the neighborhood beautification and graffiti cleanup fund tax designation ceiling for tax year 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today again we have the controllers here.

Controller's office here.

Good morning, Chair Chan, members of the committee.

Uh, my name is Marie Warshall.

I am here with the controller's office.

Uh so I have two items to run through today.

The first is number 10 on the agenda that relates to the city's access line tax.

Uh, every year we bring before you this adjustment to the access line tax.

Local code directs the controller to adjust the per line tax rate by inflation every year.

Uh this legislation increases the rates by a CPI of 3.04% uh between January 2026 and 2025 is when that's calculated.

Uh this increases the per line rate from $4.36 to $4.49s.

And then item 11 relates to the neighborhood beautification fund.

Every year we also bring before you this adjustment to the neighborhood beautification fund.

This is also known as the community challenge grant.

Uh this program is funded by the gross receipts taxpayers who designate a portion of their tax liability to this fund.

Uh these contributions would otherwise go into the general fund.

Local code requires the controller to annually calculate the maximum percent contribution of a taxpayer's gross tax liability.

Um to reach an inflation adjusted amount year over year.

This legislation sets the tax year 2026 maximum contribution at 6.2% of the total gross receipts tax liability for any given taxpayer, and we estimate this will generate 2.8 million dollars in contributions.

Thank you.

I welcome any questions.

Thank you.

And uh I don't see any name on the roster, we'll go to public commons on these two items.

Yes, we're opening public comment for both these items 10 and 11.

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

President Mandelman.

Uh thank you, Chair Chan.

I would just like to be added as a co-sponsor to item 10.

Thank you.

And with that, colleagues, I would like to move these two items to full board uh for the July 14 meeting.

Um, second by Vice Chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

And on that motion that we refer both items to the July 14th full board meeting.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Sauter, aye, member Walton.

Walton, aye, member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number twelve.

Item number twelve.

Is an ordinance amending the administrative code to authorize the city administrator to pause, reduce or return the annual contributions by the departments that contract for public works under administrative code, chapter six to the San Francisco Self Insurance Surety Bond Fund.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have the City Administrator's Office here.

Good morning, uh supervisors.

I am Katie Patruccioni, Deputy City Administrator, and I am here this morning to request the committee's approval of an ordinance amending two sections of the administrative code related to the city's surety bond program.

The surety bond program was established in 1997 at SFO and then expanded to other Chapter 6 public works projects in 1999.

This program is enshrined in Chapter 14B and is administered by the city's risk manager.

A surety bond is a third-party financial guarantee to provide assurance that a contractor will perform work at bid prices, complete that work, and or meet payment obligations.

The surety bond program was established to lower barriers for small contractors to participate on public works projects by improving their access to bonding.

As I mentioned during our budget presentation last week, this fund is currently super funded with a balance of 4.3 million dollars, and that has led the city administrator to request a pause in annual contributions to the fund until needed.

This proposed ordinance amends both chapter 14B and Chapter 10 to allow the city administrator to pause return or reduce the requirements for contributions, but it does retain the requirement for a minimum two million dollar fund balance.

This change is reflected in the city administrators' FY2627 and 2728 budget, and we request your approval to move this ordinance to the full board.

And with that, I'm happy to answer questions.

Thank you.

I don't see any name on the roster.

Let's go to public comments on this item.

Yes, we're opening a uh public comment for this item number 12.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now close.

Colleagues, I would like to send this item to full board to the July 14 meeting with recommendation.

Second, second by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Uh roll call, please.

And on to a motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey that we refer this ordinance to the July 14th meeting of the full board with a recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Soder, aye.

Member Walton.

Walton, aye, member Member Bandelman.

Chan.

Aye.

I we have four eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

It's important to have self-insurance.

And then with that, Mr.

Clark, call items 13 and 14 together.

As item numbers 13 and 14 are resolutions concurring with the controller's certification that department services previously approved can be approved by private contractor for a lower cost than similar work performed by city and county employees for the following services.

Item number 13 is for budget and legislative analyst services for the Board of Supervisors, Fleet Security Services, Real Estate Division Custodial Services, Real Estate Division Security Services, Convention Facilities Management for General Services Agency, Administrative Services.

Security Services for the Department of Public Works, Security Services for Homelessness and Supportive Housing, Security Services for Human Services Agency, Food Services at County Jails for the Sheriff's Department assembly of vote by mail services for the Department of Elections and Security Services for the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development and Item Number 14 is for Protective Services for Adult Probation Security Services for the Department of Public Health and Materials Testing and Inspection Services for the Department of Public Works.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today again we have the controller's office.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisors Soder and Walton.

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

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

We call this proposition J's as that's the voter authorization that enables it.

This item author authors the various services accompanies the mayor's proposed June 1st budget.

Both items before you are annual resolutions.

Item 13 reflects 11 services, all have been previously approved from the mayor's office of housing and community development, elections, sheriff, human service agency, homelessness and supportive housing, public works, city administrator, and the board of supervisors.

But I've all had longstanding analysis from the controller's office showing that the services would be more cost effective if contracted out.

Item 14 reflects three services for services not previously contracted out from public health, public works, and adult probation.

I'm happy to take your questions now.

And if you have questions on specific contracting out proposals, which haven't been previously approved, I'm joined by here by members of public health, adult probation, and public works.

And you also may um ask those questions when the departments come before you in the next couple days.

Thank you.

And uh I just want to uh articulate my intention through conversation and discussion uh for item 14 colleagues um and with the mayor's uh when we do our director Sophia Kitler is that for item 14, it is my intention to duplicate item 14, uh, and to move forward with the in when it comes to the not previously approved is to move forward with adult probation uh security services, how and for both uh adult probation and for the department of public health.

However, for the Department of Public Works uh contract for the materials testing and inspection services, um, that we will continue that portion of the Prop J um contract for further discussion.

Um that's my goal for today.

Uh I I see nodding from Director Kittler, so I don't have any other questions at the moment, and would like to go to public comments on these two items.

And I don't see any name on the roster, so I would like to go to public comments on items 13 and 14.

Yes, we're opening public comment for both these item numbers 13 and 14.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, first speaker, please.

Good morning.

I am Sean Stoke Weekmannish, a materials chassis technician at the materials testing lab, and I am here to deliver the signed petition with 575 signatures to the board of Supervisors and to ask them to please reject the costly outsourcing of San Francisco's material testing laboratory.

And just leave it there.

Yes, right there.

It's fine.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors.

Chris Kennedy leads to uh lead tech at the testing lab, 26 years of uh service, um proud service too.

And when you outsource the lab, you're taking away money from an established laboratory and from established city workers, and you're giving it to a private entity outside of the city.

These are the same companies that the contractors are hiring for their own quality control.

So where's the checks and balances in that?

So we are the checks and balances.

We assure that the city uh is getting what they paid for and that the materials and the workmanship is up to city standards, codes, and specifications set uh per job.

Um we have the best, not intentions, but we have what's best for the city in our hearts and in our mind, whereas private labs just have their bottom line.

Don't outsource the lab, keep city jobs.

Thank you much, Chris Setting.

Next speaker.

Hello, Supervisors, Robert Manassess, uh technician of lab.

Just monitor to give you information that San Jose County subsidized their materials testing lab to contractors and now are paying the price with more fees and costs.

And unlike us, if you subsidize us with uh contractors, you won't know what the prices they will provide.

Thank you.

Thank you, Robert Manasis.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Cesar Estrada, and I represent the staff from the DPW sister laboratory at SFO.

And I'm a private member of local 21.

Hiring private laboratories might appear to relieve the city from the monetary responsibility of operating their own, but I have personally witnessed charges approximating a quarter million dollars paid over two-month period prior to or excuse me, on a single medium-sized project, which paid for sub-centered sampling and testing.

This may sound unimportant, but false positive tests justify payment to contractors while false negative results can unnecessarily burden the contractor and cause schedule delays.

This does not include the soft costs of the city, which incurs in processing dozens of professional service contracts of this nature.

The airport currently has major construction expected to last through 2035.

The laboratory services for these projects require test results from test results from a accredited laboratory, which DPW lab maintains.

The airport has utilized DPW sources in the past for structural.

Next speaker, please.

While there are cost pressures facing the city at this moment, contracting out the testing lab is a short-sighted move with impacts to our civic infrastructure.

At a time when San Francisco is coming back, whether it's the breaking ground at Portsmouth Square Improvements or whether it's the overwhelming approval of Measure A to fund earthquake safety projects.

Contracting out the testing lab will reset this momentum.

Any apparent cost savings presented to you by the controller's office will be offset by high administrative costs not captured by individual task managers.

Please do please do not vote on this measure today.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Jocelyn.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker.

Uh good morning, supervisors.

Uh, my name is Mazen Kajazzi, project manager with the PUC.

The Prop J proposal to outsource the city lab is not a savings.

Rather, the city departments will face hurdles and additional costs in the administration of new contracts.

These contracts can take up to a year to carry out, which results in longer product durations and escalated construction costs.

We currently have long-standing partnership with the City Lab to minimize these costs, on top of providing a reliable resource to ensure level of service and safety standards.

The public works as needed contracts cited by the controller are insufficient to backfill the capacity that the city lab has served across the city for over a hundred years.

The result will be a huge disruption to projects currently in construction and waste of spending on contracting out.

This waste of spending should be invested back into the city in improving our infrastructure.

Please stand with us and reject Prop J.

Thank you.

Thank you much, President Chelsea.

Next speaker.

Thank you.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Derek Chan, Public Works Technical Engineer, thank you for the time to voice concerns concerning the timetable around Prop J, which incidentally is what I bring to want to bring to attention in lieu of many issues already being raised.

I personally only learned that the lab might close at the beginning of the month.

Um the lab workers themselves found out barely any sooner, and uh with virtually no warning.

A number of my colleagues weren't even aware of it at the beginning of this week.

I'm led to believe that others further up the ladder of uh city leadership are also not properly informed of Prop J or what it means for the city as a whole.

Uh now barely over halfway through the month.

It is being voted on with hardly any time to consider what and be informed of the resulting consequences, much less prepare for them.

It does this does not sound like a carefully considered policy for me.

It sounds like rushed in attempt to cut costs, but doesn't actually consider what those true costs are.

And even at my most generous, like I I don't see this as a particularly wise course of action.

So please do not vote on this.

But thank you much, Derek Chan.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Ben Peterson, and I've worked with the Department of Public Works for about seven years.

Uh I'm making my comment today to express my opposition to the closure of Public Works' materials testing lab.

Um, in my role as a public information officer, I work on sewer, street and sidewalk infrastructure projects.

Working closely with our construction and project management teams to make sure that we keep the public inform informed and minimally impacted by our work.

Um, I can tell you with full confidence that there's one thing that annoys the public more than construction on their block.

It's when construction is constantly delayed, stopped, and restarted at random.

Over the years, I've never encountered a project that has been stopped or even slowed down by our materials testing lab.

Whenever our crews in the field need a test, a sample or another guidance, our lab workers are on top of it.

To put it simply, this sort of efficiency and flexibility is not something that we'll get from private labs.

San Franciscans deserve a public spaces that are safe and efficiently run projects.

So let's make a smart investment by continuing to fund our city run public works materials testing lab.

Thank you.

And thank you, Ben Peterson.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Josephine Wang.

I am a junior engineer at the materials testing lab.

The city infrastructure should be overseen by public employees who are accountable to San Francisco residents, not for profit private companies.

City staff have a strong interest in long-term public outcomes with the public interest at heart.

City staff have accountability and maintaining consistent standards.

Keeping work within the city helps ensure that infrastructure such as streets, sidewalks, and roadways is designed and maintained to meet required specifications and withstand heavy use, including our Muni buses and the Underground Muni Railroad.

It also supports transparency and public oversight of how major infrastructure projects are delivered.

Please, please vote against outsourcing.

Please vote no on Prop Chain.

Thank you.

Thank you, Josephine Wong.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Jenny Sum, a construction manager with the PEC.

For over 100 years, the City Lab has provided quality assurance for construction.

Why so long?

Because you don't trust the Fox to guard the hen house.

This cut would throw away over 100 years of our ability to maintain performance, quality, and safety standards in construction, and end up costing the city more.

For example, private companies charge a four-hour minimum for a site visit.

In four hours, the city lab can test at multiple sites.

Having to contract out to different companies, we lose a streamlined protocol to procure a centralized and reliable resource that has minimized administrative burden.

The lab is worth more than a measure of FTEs.

In reality, cutting the lab will cost the city more than dollars and is contrary to what Prop J was intended to accomplish.

Please reject the Prop J outsourcing of the City Lab.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Jameson.

Next speaker.

Hello, I'm Anahita Fallon.

I'm an engineer with the SFPUC Construction Management Bureau.

For SFPC alone, we have over $2 billion in construction.

That's a lot of concrete, soil, and structural reinforcement to test.

And all of that is paid through project funds.

And project funds are different from the general fund because they come from revenue generated by the enterprise departments like SFPC and money from bond measure.

Prop J requires the city to demonstrate that contracting out the same services will be a cost savings to the city.

However, this has not been demonstrated.

Without City Lab, we lose over a hundred years of a centralized resource and database for quality assurance testing.

We'll pay more in time and administrative costs to contract out to private companies.

These companies are not necessarily local and will not have the bandwidth to support the hundreds of projects across the city.

We ask you to stand with city workers by rejecting Prop J outsourcing of the City Lab.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Nancy O'Young.

I work as resident engineer and city representative for various construction contracts with PUC.

The City Lab has always provided quality assurance testing to support construction across multiple city departments.

We partner with our fellow departments to minimize the frequency and duration of excavating the streets to maintain our infrastructure.

In the same way, our departments partner with the city lab to reduce administrative burden and ensure quality services are delivered to safety standards.

This collaboration has worked well, and there is no cost savings in reinventing the wheel.

At any given moment, we have hundreds of construction projects in progress to eliminate the city lab would disrupt our ability to deliver the level of service, quality and safety across the city, and the city lab has been providing that for over a hundred years at minimal cost.

Please stand with us and reject the Prop J outsourcing of the City Lab.

Thank you.

Thank you, Nancy L.

Young.

Next speaker.

Hello, everyone.

My name is Pon O'Rey.

I'm a resident engineer with public works, and I've been working for the city for 10 years, and I'm a sixth-generation San Franciscan.

Um private companies, um, private labs are motivated by profit, uh, like me and my other colleagues here.

We're motivated by the best interests for the city and county of San Francisco.

Um there haven't been any scandals with our materials testing lab.

Um, you see it in the news all the time.

You know, even in Hunters Point or private testing lab, falsified results and um impacted navy operations.

So please stand with me and protecting the city's best interest and the materials testing lab.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Morning, supervisors.

I'm Dame Malloy, uh senior engineer at Public Works and a former uh consultant test lab manager.

Uh my experience with the consultant labs is uh they are there for the profit, uh, not for the sake of uh San Francisco.

Well, we outsource these uh we outsource these services.

We'll be taking uh project money given it to outside services that do not have the interest of the city, or please support us in the vote new on uh Project J.

Thank you.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Uh good morning, supervisors.

Uh my name is Daniel Tan.

I'm an assistant engineer at the materials testing lab.

Uh I just wanted to say that uh it's a privilege to uh serve the city.

And uh we're accountable to uh the people, uh to you.

It's a privilege, and uh we're civil servants.

So uh, just thank you.

Uh please reject uh the outsourcing of the lab.

Thanks.

And thank you, Daniel Sang.

Next speaker.

My name is Christopher Boakley Loxton, and I would like to uh just offer two reminders or at least two clarifications to additions to what we've already discussed, and just to make it clear, I do speak in opposition uh to this uh proposition.

Uh first of all, just to be clear, the materials testing lab is in charge of multiple kinds of construction.

One of them is the subgrade that might be involved in a street.

Number two would be the concrete base that's put on top of the subgrade, and then three is going to be the asphalt concrete as a wearing surface that is also included in street restoration.

And I think as we're all aware, each three of those things need to work well in order to make sure that we don't have potholes, failures, other kinds of issues.

So the materials testing labs involved in a lot.

Second, uh I speak as a 5207 associate engineer working for the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission, particularly for the uh Hedgehogie Regional Water System.

And just as a reminder, that system is involved in uh water utilities that span all the way from the reservoirs of the city.

You got Sunset Reservoir, you got uh University of Mountain Reservoir, you got other reservoirs all the way to the Tesla treatment facility uh near Tracy, California.

We have assets that expand all the way across that region, all the way up to Hetchet, as I'm sure we're aware will well aware, and the materials testing labs involved in all of that region.

But thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, supervisors.

Uh my name is Alicia Flores, and I'm a representative here on behalf of not just the Public Works Materials Testing Lab, but many of our members who couldn't be here today and are in this room in solidarity with uh our workers at Public Works, also from PUC, DPH, and SFO.

Uh today we remind you that the city has not met its contractual obligation to the union.

They have still not provided dates to meet and discuss alternatives to contracting out, and in fact, gave us inaccurate information that this was not going to be heard today, and actually only tomorrow.

Uh contracting out services that our members do not only violates our contract but leads to higher costs and fees.

Um please stand with city workers and reject the contracting out of the materials testing and inspection services at public works.

Thank you.

And thank you, Alicia Flores.

Next speaker, please.

Good afternoon, Chair and members of the committee.

My name is Minerva Walston, staff with IFPTE Local21, in opposition to the proposed outsourcing of the materials testing lab services.

The materials testing lab plays a critical role in ensuring the safety and integrity of our public infrastructure.

Outsourcing this work would reduce the city's in-house expertise, oversight, and long-term capacity to perform these essential services.

This proposal would transfer important city work to a private contractor and directly resulting in approximately 10 layoffs.

While the city claims this outsourcing will generate savings, the union continues to have concerns around the proposal and its impacts on affected employees.

To date, the city has not provided dates to meet with the union to discuss these impacts and address our concerns.

We urge the committee to reject the proposed outsourcing of the materials testing lab and preserve important work within the city workforce.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Minerva Walson.

And seeing no other people in line, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

President Amendelman.

Thank you, Chair Chan, and thank you for um what I think it takes to be a fairly solemnic uh uh approach to uh item number 14, and thank you uh to the budget director Sophia Kittler, who I assume has been in conversation with the budget chair.

Um, I think uh this is feels like a big shift uh and sounds like it landed uh the closing of the lab to, you know, landed without very much prior notice to any of us or to the impacted uh folks who've been working for the city for a very long time and so I would certainly like some more time to get a handle on whether this makes sense, whether this is the right way to do it, what the potential cost to the city of keeping the lab going are, what the costs of closing it are um and all that.

I don't think we can do that today.

So thanks, Chair Chan, for working this out for us.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, um Chair Chan.

So proposition J, which voters adopted, I think 50 years ago, authorizes the city to enter into agreements with private contractors when public services can be performed at a lower cost to taxpayers.

Uh but it also preserved the safeguard of our legislative process to acknowledge that there are going to be times when cost savings alone uh may be pennywise but pound foolish, and I think there are um institutional uh memories and knowledge about our city for services that are performed that are not going to be matched by a contractor.

Um so I am uh persuaded that this is one of those instances where the board should exercise its uh authority to um not make a pennywise and pound foolish decision.

So I'm gonna be supporting uh this your um measure or your amendment uh chair chan.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Um and so with that I'm gonna um first made the motion that is a bit more straightforward with the prop J contract that was already previously approved, which is item 13, and colleagues, I would like to move item 13 to full board with recommendation to the board meeting on July 14th.

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

And on a motion by Chair Chan, pardon seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey that we refer the resolution in item 13 to the July 14th meeting of the full board, vice chair Dorsey, Dorsey Aye, Member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mendelman, aye, Mendelman, aye, Chair Chan.

I chan aye, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And as for item 14, that are for the Prop J contracts that were not previously approved.

There are brand new ones coming to this body.

Um colleagues, I would like to first duplicate it the file.

Um I don't need a motion for that, and uh with the duplicated file to amend first to amend original file to remove the Department of Public Works um material testing and inspection services contract.

That is both on page one, um, long title lines seven and eight, and then also on page two, deleting lines eight and nine.

Um, with this amendment, we are um removing um the department of public works contract for the materials and tech materials testing and inspection services from this file.

Uh and a roll call on this amendment.

And on the motion that we amend the original file in item number 14 to remove the materials testing and inspection services for the Department of Public Works.

Move by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton.

Walton, aye, member Mendelman.

Aye.

Mattelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye, we have five eyes.

And motion passes.

And with this uh original and amended file, I would like to move this file to full board with recommendation to the July 14 full board meeting.

The amended file.

The amended or second by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Uh a roll call, please.

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

Do we refer to the resolution and item number 14 to the July 14th full board as amended?

By Chair Dorsey.

Aye.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Sauter aye, member Walton.

Walton, aye, member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And with the duplicated version, colleagues, I would like to remove um the adult probation in the Department of Public Health.

That is on the page one long title, lines six and seven, to delete these two contracts, adult probation and department of public health, and on page two, deleting lines four through seven.

And that what this means is the duplicated version will no longer have the adult probation in Department of Public Health and with only the materials testing and inspection services for Department of Public Works remain.

And with this amendment, and that I would like let's do this amendment first.

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

And on the motion to amend the duplicated file.

Move by Chair Chan, second by Vice Chair Dorsey.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Sauter, aye, member Walton.

Walton, aye, member Mandelman.

Aye.

Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have five eyes.

The motion passes.

But that means with this duplicated file will be continue to our Thursday meeting.

No.

I can do call the chair, but I think Thursday meetings tomorrow.

Um we can continue the item to uh to tomorrow's meeting.

Uh simply because it'll be a recessed meeting and we can uh we could basically open the discussion when you do finally call the uh the item along our uh the balance of our hearing.

Yeah, so I will make the motion to continue the amend duplicated and amended item to tomorrow's budget and finance uh uh budget and appropriation committee meeting, second by by uh supervisor walton and a roll call, please.

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

Oh, sorry, by member Walton, that we continue the duplicated resolution to the June 18th meeting of this committee.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mandelman.

Aye, Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan, aye, Chan, aye, we have five eyes.

The motion passes, and and if I may, and to explain why the continuance is because I think we should figure out the dollar amount that is for the property contract and and that but that also the discrepancy that to bring back the staff.

President Amendment, is is the chair's thought that we're gonna get all of that done by tomorrow, or are we just keeping it on our agenda rolling forward and at some point with lots of notice to impacted and interested parties, the chair will let people know that the actual day when this is getting decided is coming?

Correct.

So we'll just keep continuing it day by day, and at some point, but you will put the word out.

Okay.

I think it's also working with Director Kittler to make sure that we can balance this budget and understanding the I do not imagine to offset the contract dollar amount versus this existing staffing is as a that there's a lot of dollar that is a gap.

There I don't imagine there's a a significant gap between the contracting dollars versus the staffing dollars in terms of budget.

President Manelman.

But are you is it your expectation as well get worked out tomorrow, or are you just or at some point in the future.

Before budget is done?

I think that's a director Kittler question as well.

Uh Sophia Gitler for the Mayor's budget office.

Um we can absolutely have those numbers for you tomorrow.

We so we are going to take the remote.

But actually, take it up tomorrow.

You're it is the the choice of this body, one that I'd like to bring it up.

Okay.

Okay.

I see nodding, great.

Thank you.

Um.

I mean, I think we just kind of discuss it today.

It's good to know that everybody seems to be on the same page about this contract or against contracting out, and that is in the interests of this body to uh it seems to be me, and I'm happy to have discussion right now.

It seems to me that it is the intention of this committee to table the contract property contract with Department of Public Works and instead to identify dollars to make sure that we maintain staffing level for that its equivalence to this contract at within the Department of Public Works and having this done having this work done by city workers.

I see I see agreement in this.

And so we will work this out.

Thank you.

And I see agreement in the department uh in the mayor's office too.

So I appreciate everyone working together on this.

Thank you for that consensus.

And I think we're ready to move on to items number 15.

Yes, item number 15.

Is a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to issue an amended permit allowing another planet entertainment to hold ticketed concerts at the Golden Gate Park polo field to take place on the Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, either following or preceding the outside lands festivals in 2027, 2028, and 2029, in exchange for a minimum permit fee of approximately 1.5 million per year for two-day events and approximately 2.3 million per year for three-day events through 2029, and with options to extend the permit until 2035, and with increased minimum permit fees during any such extensions, affirming the con uh the categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act and authorizing the recreation and park department general manager to enter into amendments or modifications to the permit that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the permit or this resolution, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Just for background, Outside Lands, of course, is held every August in the park.

Uh it's the premier three-day festival that blends multi-genre music with the finest Bay Area Food Drink and Culture.

A Bay Area-based concert production company, another planet hosts the festival under a permit with the department issued in 2009, uh, which runs until 2031.

The performances are held uh throughout the western end of the park with the main stage at the polo field.

Uh in July of 2023, the department and another planet entered into a separate three-year agreement uh to allow a concert at the polo field the weekend immediately following outside lands each year.

This is a different sort of concert experience on a much smaller scale than outside lands.

Uh it only has the one stage focusing on one headliner or genre, lower attendance with about 50,000 to 57,000 fans, and shorter shows with fewer acts and fewer issues with noise.

In 2024, the headliners were the new metal artist system of a down and the deaf tones.

In 2025, the headliners were the country rock performers Zach Bryan and the Kings of Leon.

And those two years of uh concerts alone uh generated permit fees to the department of 2.84 million dollars.

In initially approving uh the the polo permit, uh recreation and park was envisioned that if the event were successful, it could continue beyond the original three years.

And uh based on the attendance and uh another planet's effective management of these events, the department has determined that an extension is appropriate.

The amendment before you extends the term for three years with further options to extend.

It increases the permit fees based on CPI.

And one key difference is that it provides an option uh to hold the event either on the weekend after or before outside lands.

Um another plan can opt to do one or the other, which provides more flexibility while keeping some of the uh the efficiencies.

And those efficiencies really are unique to holding this concert uh close in time to outside lands with the same uh producer.

The events are really feasible because they occur close in time, which reduces costs and park impacts.

It allows the reuse of significant infrastructure, such as the polo field uh stage itself remains on site uh for outside lands and and these concerts.

Uh, another other facilities are reused as well.

It allows just one load-in and loadout.

And another planet has extensive experience mitigating impacts on the park and the surrounding community through their many years of uh putting on outside lands.

So there's really unique benefits to having the same consistent organizer for both events.

Uh here we see a map that compares the uh the footprint of outside lands compared to uh the polo field concerts and of course uh outside lands is on a much uh greater scope compared to the polo field events.

Uh, outside lands has eight stages, five event areas, and seventy-five acres, whereas uh the polo field occurs on just the one stage in the one event area over 25 acres.

To uh summarize the key terms, the uh initial term of this extension would be three years, with a first option for another three years and then a second option for three years on top of that uh for a total of up to nine years, which would take us through 2035.

Importantly, uh, if the separate outside lands permit is not extended and that festival would not be held, uh the con the polo field concerts could still continue, provided they're held on one of the first three weekends in August.

In that situation, either party could choose to terminate uh by providing 60 days notice after termination of outside lands.

And the uh amendment continues some key uh protections and mitigation measures to support the surrounding neighborhoods and prepare for sound and transportation impacts from the concerts, including uh community hotline.

Uh another planet will provide MTA officers in the neighborhoods, uh, free Muni rides and shuttle services to and from the event, and a dedicated ride share uh pickup and drop-off area.

Another planet uh must continue to comply with operating and outreach requirements from the outside lands permit and meet with neighborhood groups in advance to plan for impacts from the event.

And they will work with a private security firm and uh SFPD to provide full security uh at their own cost.

And critically, uh another planet will continue to give back to the community uh under the outside lands permits, they provide thirty thousand dollars annually to each of districts one and four for projects and programs, and under the uh amended polo permit, they'll continue to pay an additional ten thousand each year to teach district.

And free concerts.

Another planet will organize three free San Francisco concerts in the summer andor fall each year at three of four of uh Civic Center, Union Square, the Embarcadero, or the Jerry Garcia Amphitheater.

In conclusion, the polo field concerts uh continue the rich legacy of live music in Golden Gate Park that have provided significant cultural, recreational, and economic impacts.

In fact, a recent report by the Bay Area Council Economic Institute found that the concerts in Golden Gate Park last summer alone, which included outside lands as well as the Dead and Company shows, uh, in addition to the Zach Bryan concert, generated 245 million dollars in economic benefits to the Bay Area, and 37.8 million of that came from the Zach Bryan Polo Field concert alone.

The department has worked effectively with another planet as a responsive and responsible partner that has managed outside lands and the polo concert successfully bringing out thousands of music fans each year while mitigating impacts protecting the park and working to address community concerns.

Therefore we uh we asked this committee to approve the resolution to extend the permit.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Is it uh accurate to say that there will be no additional concert or there's no golden gate polo field concert this year.

Uh from from what I understand uh another planet is still uh looking at organizing an event we might have additional information that's up to date.

Good afternoon uh committee members I'm gonna have Alan Scott from another planet here he can probably explain a little bit more I know they they were working on artists in particular and they had some challenges but we'll let him kind of talk a little bit more because my understanding is they're still moving forward as much as we can and if it for some reason still doesn't go through they're still paying the community benefit fund they're still having the free downtown concerts and they're still paying the permit fee.

But what Alan asked anything else if needed Mr Scott.

Hello supervisors do I need to add any color to that we've um we're still working on the concert for the uh the weekend after outside lands uh we had a significant artist who uh we thought was gonna play and is no longer playing so we are diligently working to uh fill it but as uh Bev said if we do not do a concert there all the fees and the free concerts and the community funds will be paid in full and done in full so we've already done two of the free concerts down at Barcadero Plaza and they've gone great but um there's a lot of variables that go into booking uh artists of this size these are Stadium acts they're actually bigger than the artists at headline outside lands so there's just a lot of different nuances that go into it but um you know we want to make sure that what we bring to the park um is adequate for the city as well as for us um both economically but also genre wise and uh how it affects the the surrounding community thank you and I think that's actually uh get down to sort of my questions why um when will we know and so then we can actually have adequate outreach and adequate um information for the community that could be impacted by the closure of the park and do we have an estimate meaning should you decide to be sometime in August for the second weekend does that mean we will know by mid-July or or how would they like 30 days by the end of this month I mean we're giving ourselves two weeks at at some point it's just too tight a window we do have the mailer going out already without the concert but if there is a concert I will do another mailer and other outreach and of course be in contact with your office um because I know you you have a great way of reaching your constituents.

We appreciate it I think ultimately uh we understand I uh I would say that you know from feedback wise uh I think that for the merchants uh in the for our merchants in the Richmond we um we seem to have more positive feedback for the Golden Gate polo field concerts um because um they are run by per day and that allowing concert goers to actually uh in and out um and they go in three o'clock uh so they they will come and visit our merchants during the day and then they go into the concerts and then um because they are released by 10 then they visit the bars and restaurants nearby um it works for us uh or I should say works for the small business and the commercial corridors um and and knowing that they're not the the patrons are not trapped inside for three all three days um and that they are actually in and out and be able to visit um merchants and restaurants and bars nearby so so that format seems to be more uh well received.

Just a feedback.

Yes, and and it's a later start generally, so I think that helps people grab lunch and different things before they go in.

So that's the good feedback.

Thank you.

Thank you.

With that, we will go to public commons on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding the this item number 15.

And with that, first speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

I'm David, excuse me, I'm David Plank.

I'm a resident of the outer Richmond.

Um, and I'd hear I'm here to support uh the proposed amendment to the outside uh another planet contract.

Um for the past several years I have not attended uh outside lands because I'm too old and I don't recognize the names of any of the performers on the program, and I was grateful uh to Another Planet last year when they booked Zach Bryan and my wife and I went to that concert and we enjoyed it very much.

So I'm very much in favor of this amendment.

Thank you.

And thank you much, Dave Plank.

Next speaker.

Thanks, Supervisors.

My name's Chris Clark, longtime resident of both the Sunset and now Richmond district, uh, local artist and small business owner as well.

Uh big fan of these events, not just for the fun, but also the economic um benefits to the city.

Um, having seen the the evolution of uh care for the park over the last 16, 17 years, it's really remarkable what um parks and rec has been able to do with the funding that uh has been provided by another planet who've been great stewards for for these events and the city.

So thank you.

I really support this.

Thank you much, Chris Clark.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Beatrice Clark.

I'm a freshly minted um voter, and I was born and raised in San Francisco.

I've also lived in the Sunset and Richmond districts my whole life, and I'm truly impressed by how another planet stewards these events by making them so fun for friends and families, and also how thoroughly they and quickly the park gets cleaned up and gets back in business.

Thank you much, Beatrice Clark, next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Tanya Kolar.

I'm a San Francisco resident, and I teach uh local Bay Area restaurants how to execute and plan uh food vending operations at Outside Lands Music Festival.

We've all experienced a heartbreak of one of our favorite local restaurants closing down because they just can't make ends meet, rising cost of goods, rising rent and labor struggles, and it's never been tougher to operate a restaurant in the Bay Area.

Outside lands and the polo field concerts create new revenue streams for these small local businesses, and in a time of so much uncertainty for them, provide an annual income boost that some of them rely on to stay afloat.

These events also provide valuable promotional exposure for these local businesses, increasing their visibility among a demographic that enjoys and has the financial means to attend events and dine out in their spare time.

If even a small percentage of attendees become regular customers of their brick and mortar businesses, it can mean the difference between remaining open and closing up shop for these reasons.

I support the polo field concert permit extension.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Tanya Pollar.

Next speaker.

Hello, good afternoon.

My name is Lisa Eaton, and I am a Richmond Met um resident.

And on behalf of my partner and myself, I'm here to um support outside lands and to thank Another Planet for their care and professionalism that they brought to our community over these last almost 18 years.

Um we are we actually plan our summers around being in town for these events.

We um, as year-round users of the Golden Gate Park for daily exercise, cultural events, um, and gatherings.

We see the festival as a natural part of our season, and um we um it's become very meaningful to us over the years to watch not just me and my friends go but watch our friends' children's grow as locals.

We also see the positive impact that it has beyond the gates.

There's a real buzz in the richment and the sunset that we really enjoy.

We make more use of the local restaurants and the businesses in the neighborhoods throughout the weekend.

We invite people from the other parts of the Bay Area to stay with us, and they become um locals for that weekend as well.

Um, I think that's my time.

Yes, it is.

So thank you very much.

Thank you much, Lisa Eden, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Beanie and my sister Sonita, and I owe Beanie's Kitchen, a small home owned Nepali restaurant in San Francisco.

This is our 12th year of being outside land.

I'm here today to support continued music event at the follow-field before and after outside lands.

These events are more than just entertainment, they're an important economic drive for small business like ours for businesses in San Francisco, especially restaurant food vendors and local suppliers.

These events bring thousands of visitors into our city.

The revenue was earned during this weekend's help sustain us through the shower wind within months when sales decline significantly.

I respectfully ask the board of supervisors continuing these music events at the polo field.

They bring visitors, create jobs, generate the revenue, and help small business like ours remain open and continue serving our communities.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you.

And thank you, Beanie.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, committee members.

Uh my name is Tim with a restaurant in San Francisco called Azalinas in the tenderloin.

Uh, we've been participating in outside lands in Golden Gate Park for 16 years.

Uh running a restaurant in San Francisco can be challenging.

There's always pressures on margins.

They're very thin.

And there's an ebb and flow with restaurant business in San Francisco.

Participating in outside lands gives us a chance to uh create revenue and sell to a full house, expose our brand, and give a little bit of cushion for that ebb and flow.

And I think the polo field concerts provide that opportunity to other restaurants like us and help them get through uh the year.

Uh for these reasons I support uh the extension.

Thank you.

And thank you, Tim.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Mary Markingan.

I'm a local small business owner and a longtime resident of Outer Richmond.

Uh San Francisco's long been known as a city of music creativity and innovation.

Another planet helps keep San Francisco a destination for world-class arts and entertainment, bringing tens of thousands of visitors into SF who spend money at local businesses.

This is what we want.

When San Francisco invests in culture, small businesses benefit too.

Having lived in the Outer Richmond for over 20 years, I personally believe that the Outer Sunset and Outer Richmond businesses, business districts have been economically increased dramatically and actually put on the map due to all the concert events in Golden Gate Park.

San Francisco doesn't succeed by becoming quieter or less creative.

We succeed when we embrace the art, support larku businesses, welcome visitors, and create memorable experiences for the residents.

These events and the proposed extended events in the polo fields are not just concerts, they're economic engines, cultural assets, and a reflection of what makes San Francisco special.

Thank you.

And thank you, Mary Marquinen.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Sasha Diedrich.

I'm a longtime resident of the Outer Richmond.

I've raised my kids there, and I've been a longtime supporter of the concerts at the polo fields and outside lands.

Um partially for selfish reasons.

I want to have a world-class festival in my neighborhood.

And as most San Francisco residents are aware, the middle of the summer is foggy, can be very cold, and a lot of people like to leave San Francisco.

So this has been a really big draw for our neighborhood.

And while I am not a small uh small business owner in the Outer Richmond, I have seen what it's done anecdotally.

And then also as a mother, I have seen how much money.

It's been a boon really to a lot of the schools in the district to be able to provide the parking opportunities that have helped us uh raise thousands of dollars that we would not otherwise be able to raise.

So, yes, please, and thank you to more of these concerts.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

And seeing no other speakers in line, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

See no more seeing no more public comments.

Public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to make the motion to move this to full board with recommendation.

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

And on that motion by Church and Secretary by Vice Chair Dorsey that we refer this resolution to the July 14th full board with a recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Hi.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Sauter, aye.

Member Walton.

Walton, aye.

Member Mandelman.

Aye.

Manelman.

Aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan.

Aye.

We have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 16.

This item number 16 is an ordinance modifying the baseline funding requirements for early care and education programs in fiscal years 2026 to 2027 and 2027 to 2028 to enable the city to use the interest earned from the early care and education commercial rents tax for those baseline programs.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have our Department of Department of Early Childhood here.

Thank you.

Ingrid Musquita, Department of Early Childhood.

Thank you.

Chair Chan, Co-Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Walton, and Supervisor Mendelman.

I'm here to present the ordinance for the businesses tax regulation code of the early care and education commercial rents tax baseline for fiscal year 26 and 27 and 27 and 28, which with the ordinance would modify the baseline funding requirements for the early care and education programs for both of these fiscal years to enable the city to use the interest earned from the early care and education commercial rents tax for those baseline programs for both fiscal years starting in 2627.

The amounts are 16.9 million dollars.

And for 2728, that amount would decrease to 16 million 650,000.

And these credits would not apply against the base amount in any fiscal year where the cash balance in the babies and families first fund until it reaches 300 million dollars.

And I'm available in case you have questions to that.

The interest is would be appropriated to DEC's budget next year to fund babies and family first fund eligible activities.

The mayor's proposed budget does assume passage of this adjusted baseline spending requirement and also funds early care and education above the baseline spending requirement.

So in each of the next two years, baseline spending for early care and education is $87 million approximately.

That is funded by PEF, the children's fund, and there is seven percent general fund uh funding those uh baseline spending requirements, but we do consider approval to be a policy matter for the board.

Thank you.

I think we this is like their fiscal year in the role that we are doing this.

I wish we don't have to um uh regrettably with the budget deficit.

Um, here we are again.

Um, and so thank you so much for your work.

Uh I know we have we'll have further discussion about just the overall department early childhood budget, uh, but specifically on this item today is to take the interest of the fund to um to appropriate it uh for into the general fund and spending.

So with that, let's go to public comment on this item.

As we are opening public comment for this item number 16.

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

First speaker, please, good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Lourdes Larcone, and I live and work in San Francisco in the Excelsior neighborhood.

We thank the members of the board of supervisors committing to expand ECE to more San Franciscans.

Uh, as a parent and as an educator, I see the need.

More funding and services for children with special needs is desperately needed.

There are children with IEPs not receiving the services.

Educators have not received the cost of living adjustment in five years and are struggling to make ends meet.

So please we ask, keep the funding promised for baby proxy.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Lord.

Next speaker.

Hi.

Good afternoon.

My name is Elia Fernandez, and I'm with Parent Voices.

Baby props is very important to all and families with special needs children.

Please don't take out or borrow funds from a children's future because we are facing a fiscal cliff for BBC.

Our kids depend on baby proxy.

Please don't have to stop balancing the budget of the backs of our babies.

And I also have kids with special grandkids with special needs.

So please support us.

Thank you.

Thank you, Elia Fernandez.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Quinn, and I'm here as a parent leader with the Family Services Alliance and Parent Voices.

I'm the mother of a five-year-old daughter.

Like many families, the child care options available through Alpha have not met our families' needs.

As a result, my daughter learns and grows through play groups at family resource centers across the city.

FRC provide valuable social, emotional, and educational opportunities for children ages zero to five.

These programs have been an important source of learning, connection, and support for my daughter.

Investing more.

Investing more funding in family resource center is a great way to put the baby propsy reserve to work now while directly supporting families like mine.

I also support expanding access to child care by allowing family, friends, and neighbor care for families who work weekends, night shift and non-traditional hours.

Thank you.

Thank you, Juan.

Next speaker.

Thank you, Board of Supervisors.

My name is Maria Lu Story, the organizer of Parent Voices.

And even with BBC funds, we still have a lot of unmet needs.

We should allow for family-friendly neighbor care exception when alpha is not available.

We also need to fund respite care for families who cannot access full child care.

Example, moms who need to go to the dentist, doctor visit, do grocery shopping.

We also need to address care for children with special needs by training the workforce and increasing their wages for this important job.

And we also need to talk to our friend Governor Nissan because the legislature passed a budget yesterday that includes 30,000 child care spots because we still have a thousand children on the waiting list in San Francisco, and about 900 of them are not eligible for BBC.

We need also to find we need transparency and accountability.

And no BBC funds.

Sorry for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is June Bug, and I'm a leader with Parent Voices San Francisco.

I'm born and raised here in the city.

And I do want to thank the Board of Supervisors today for commitment to early care and education.

I know that we're facing a difficult budget year.

I also want to thank the mayor for making that commitment to protect baby propsy when he was running for mayor originally.

I want to bring that up because it's important.

People voted with that trust in mind.

I come today without trying not to cry because I am a parent with a child with special needs and who requires an IEP and who requires an FFN provider.

And we can't afford a reduction in these services.

We need an increase, we need an investment.

I have no one from my daughter to take care of.

My daughter has cerebral palsy.

And if I don't have an FFM provider to take care of her, how can I continue to help my community?

I can't believe that this is even up for discussion.

Please protect baby props C.

Please protect the.

Thank you much, Jim Bug for addressing this committee.

And seeing no other speakers in line, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no public commons, public comment is now close.

Colleagues, as we have uh done previously, and sometimes my memory laps, and then I I think I I could um, and I'm gonna explain this and walk us through what this is before us today.

And if I'm inaccurate, uh Director Kittler, please jumped in.

But if I understand this correctly, and what we're trying to do here, is that we're basic there's funds generated from uh that there's interest generated from the fund accrued from uh baby C.

And what we are doing right now is to take that interest that is generated from the fund to appropriate it into a general fund spending to actually help us offset the deficit.

However, by technically adjusting that by technically taking that interest, we are also then have to technically adjust the baseline appropriation dollar amount.

So the lower funds, the lower dollar amount is really the calculation of the interest, not the fact that we're lowering the appropriation of the overall of baby props C.

And I hope that's the accurate description and that's accurate enough.

Um, which we have done the previous.

anybody want to jump in?

Fairly accurate.

That is that is how we see it.

Yes.

Thank you.

And so with that, we are um so colleagues.

We have done this the last two fiscal years is not something that I I think any of us really want to do.

We if we could, I think we would want to be able to bridge the deficits from every fund from every other fund.

But frankly, this is really uh a suggestions by our former controller Ben Rosenfell, and and by identifying interest of these funds, interest generated from these funds became a good solution for the time being.

But ultimately, for the long haul, I it is my recommendation that we fulfill this application without taking any of the interest generated from any of the funds.

Um, so I don't see any name on the roster at the moment.

Colleagues, I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation to the July 14 um meeting.

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

And on a motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey to refer this ordinance to the July 14th uh full board meeting.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey Aye, Member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, I member Mandelman.

Aye, Mandelman, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan.

Aye, we have five eyes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call uh our last two items for on today's agenda.

Item 17 and 18 together.

Yes, item numbers 17 and 18.

Item number 17 is an ordinance temporarily suspending the cap on the use of homelessness gross receipts tax revenues to fund short-term rental subsidies and finding that temporarily allowing for increased expenditures on short-term rental subsidies will further the purposes of the R City R Home Fund pursuant to the business and tax regulations code, and item number 18 as a resolution approving the fiscal years 2026 to 2027 and 2027 to 2028 expenditure plan for the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing Fund.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have our Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing here.

Good afternoon, Chair, good afternoon members.

Uh Emily Cohen with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

I'm here with you today for two pieces of trailing legislation going with the budget.

The first one I'm presenting on, which is actually the second item, item 18 is the HSH fund.

The administrative code requires the department to submit an expenditure plan if the proposed appropriation from the HSH fund exceeds $11.8 million dollars, as in pretty much every year, we are here to present that.

The HSH fund supports formally homeless recipients of the Human Service Agency's CAP program, county adult assistance program, and over 1,200 units of housing.

This resolution would approve the FY26 and FY27 expenditure plan of 23.1 million in one year and in year one and 23.4 million in year two.

The item 17 is trailing legislation related to the R City R home fund.

Um this ordinance simply lifts the R City R home 12% cap on time-limited rental subsidies, and this will allow us to create those 800 rental or 800 subsidies that I was here.

Shereen was here before you to talk about last week.

And we really see this as an opportunity to drive more investments towards families, towards young adults, and older adults in our community.

The ordinance does not change any of the R City R home funding categories, nor does it change future allocations, and it builds on the temporary cap waiver that this board has passed every fiscal year, I believe, at least the last several fiscal years, because the 12% is quite limiting.

Thank you.

Item 17 is a ordinance that would suspend the 12% spending cap on the use of homeless gross receipts tax revenue for short-term rental subsidies in fiscal year 2728.

So the homeless gross receipts tax revenue measure includes spending allocation requirements by program area and by population, and within the housing bucket, only 12% of housing uh revenues can be used for short-term rental subsidies or rental subsidies that last less than five years.

The board suspended that requirement uh and last June for 2526 and 2627.

And so this is necessary to continue the existing rental subsidies that are in place now into fiscal year 2728.

So that's what this ordinance accomplishes.

Um, in addition to that, HSH their budget is seeking to add 800 new rental subsidies, which we detail in the report, but they include 350 subsidies for families, 250 subsidies for adults, and 200 for youth.

Um looking at the budget this year, 25% of new homeless groceries tax revenues uh within the housing budget are dedicated to uh rental subsidies, and that number goes up to 33 percent uh in fiscal year 28.

So that's why this ordinance is necessary for the second year of the budget.

You can see on page 14 of the report the kind of breakdown of the spending for the 800 new rental subsidies.

It's 33.6 million dollars in fiscal year 2627 and 47.5 million dollars in 2728.

Thank you.

Um, I as you may recall last year, we have an agreement about capping um the 19 million dollars of additional spending.

Um where are we with that in terms of how that calculates into the 26, 27, and 2728?

Sophia Kittler from the Mayor's budget office.

So my understanding of of the legislation that we passed last year was moving things from one bucket to another, so specifically moving things out of housing and into shelter and hygiene.

Um, this year the budget does not contemplate the rearranging of any buckets.

However, within the housing within the housing buckets, there is a a proposed limp a limit in the legislation on how much we can spend on um what propsy defines as short-term subsidies, um, and so we are spending within the housing category more money on short-term as a percentage, but so that it does not move across buckets, it is just within the housing bucket, if that makes sense.

We are not proposing to um move.

I think we are actually not using most of our $19 million dollar um allotments that you guys had had um given for lack of better words.

But technically, if we were to suspend the CAP, there's only CAP on the um shelter and hygiene category, isn't it?

I so I think there's there's um so there are Props C does contemplate um how it would like the money apportioned, a certain percentage on housing, and within housing bucket, a cap on short-term rental subsidies.

There are also um an apportionment to shelter and hygiene, um, an apportionment to mental health, an apportionment to prevention, and so we are staying within the proposed percentages for the buckets, but raising the cap within the housing buckets from between on the proportion between long-term subsidies and short-term subsidies.

Understood, and by the equivalency of the 12%, it's which is 800 new rental subsidies, roughly how much is that?

So we will be at around 25% of the current year housing allocation, which is consistent with where we've been for the last um four budget cycles, and and but then the dollar amount of that 12% cap.

Do we know for the second time?

Good afternoon, committee members.

Dylan Schneider, Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

So what we have for the breakdown of the cap this year would be 47.5 million, which would support the 400 new subsidies in year two of the budget of that full 800, as well as 31 million that would sustain ongoing subsidies that are currently in place.

So is the is the cap or the is the increase 13.9 million.

The increase in year two for the cap would be that 47.5 million that is supporting the 400 proposed new subsidies.

And that's additional or just uh, that is the additional.

So um, you know, we have our our our bucket, I believe it's like 81.7 million for the 800 new subsidies over the two years.

So year two for those 400 subsidies is about that 47.5 million that is a new proposed investments this year.

Undership, thank you.

That's fair helpful.

Um, great.

I am in support of that, like uh, and do we want to walk through just a little bit about more than I think there's two um perspective here, too.

One is that propsy in general is generating um more, like it's at least sixty-eight million dollars more than what we projected, and that it is my understanding that we are putting a portion of that into a reserve, which is a total of ninety-eight million.

Um yes, the department may have uh more specific numbers.

I did not come with them, but generally there are a few things happening.

Um, in previous years, uh we had been using unspent fund balance to um to kind of stave off fiscal cliffs over a number of years.

And and what we have seen is both in the current year and in the two upcoming years, we are expecting more propsy ongoing revenue than we had previously projected.

And so that does a few things.

First, um the ongoing revenue for lack of a better term, pushes out the fund balance that we had previously programmed.

So we have more fund balance than we expected.

The current year um the current year receipts coming in higher than previously projected is what generates that $98 million reserve, um, and then there is still more fund balance on top of that.

And so this budget contemplates both the increased revenue levels that are sustained as well as using around 200 million dollars of fund balance that we no longer needed for other things and expanding um services with that extra fund balance.

And so this we have kind of like we have grown the pie significantly, and so we are staying in kind of the same percentage of um of short-term subsidies as we had before, but the number the dollar value is growing significantly.

Okay, thank you.

And so thank you for that walkthrough.

And so with that, um, I don't see any name on the roster.

We will go to public commons on these two items.

Yes, we're opening public comment regarding these items 17 and 18, specifically on the ordinance temporary suspending the cap on the use of homelessness gross receipt tax and the department of Homelessness's um expenditure plan.

First speaker, please.

Translation.

First speaker, yes.

Can you speak to name this?

Do you have translation?

Can I translate?

Sure.

Okay, thank you.

First speaker.

It's still limited to one minute.

Thank you, Service.

Good morning.

Hi.

Sorry.

I'm Beatrice, and I'm here to ask you, please to not put the cap on the pre uh to respect the cap of proposition C.

Recordemos que los altos costos de viviendas son impossibles.

So also the high cost of living here in San Francisco is impossible to pay it off.

And it's really hard for families to stay in San Francisco if we had to pay the full amount of the rent.

And we have difficulties because our kids are going to school here.

Here's our neighborhoods, here's where we belong.

And they also spend a lot of money.

Um in the event of the APEC, and they spend like four millions of dollars in the Moscani Center, and they are still saying they don't have money for enough enough for permanent supporting permanent housing.

Thank you, Service.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Yong Yu Lei, and I am a mother of three children.

Our family of five are currently living in District 6, and we are uh receiving the emergency housing voucher.

We really need long-term um housing support because short-term housing, they can really help us.

Currently, I am the only person who is working to support my family because my husband, he has health conditions and he's unable to work, and I have a kid who is in special education who requires a lot of my time to take care of him.

I really hope to get the support from all the supervisors here to uh for long-term housing subsidies because all the families in San Francisco really need your help to have a stable life and future.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Okay.

Hi, Jennifer Freedom Block Coalition on Homelessness.

And you want to come up here?

Okay, I just want to do some background on the purpose of Prop C.

Uh we wrote it and put it on the ballot to address the structural issues that were driving homelessness.

Uh and we purposely put the cap in the 12% for that very reason.

What we had been seeing is a huge revolving door in our system.

Folks going into treatment back to the streets, folks going into shelter, back to the streets, um, folks going in short-term subsidies and back to the streets.

Our lack of diversity in what we have to offer is a result of the last few years.

We had a structural shortfall in propsy, so that's why we did the short-term subsidies.

There's not a lot of options for people on fixed incomes or people who need longer-term support unless we add long-term subsidies because of the Trump cuts to mixed status families.

Um, very few permanent options are there.

Also, 70% of families on short term subsidies are placed out of county.

And 20% on long-term subsidies.

SF landlords don't like.

Next speaker, please.

Three minors, one with disability, and uh myself also has uh PTSD.

I am here today to uh talk about my case and let you guys know where my situation my current situation is.

I receive uh I was nominated with uh subsidy, which I was slow.

Um two days ago I receive a phone call that is gonna be um more for two bedrooms of a family my size.

So now I am very grateful for it, but it's only for two years.

Um, with the struggle that I have already and all the barriers I have with my family so far.

I don't think I will be able to make it through in two years where I really need to be.

There's a lot of healing is a lot of trauma that my family is being through, uh, not just because we are DV survivors, but being shelter assistant is being very traumatic as well.

Speaker's time has expired.

Thank you.

But thank you much.

Uh, so for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, nice to meet you.

My name is Carter.

I am here representing homeless coalition, and the people's budget.

I'm here to speak with you today about this year's budget for the homeless families, parents, children, and community members, and the coalition of homeless and Chinatown community development center are uh are urging city leaders to invest in long-term subsidies for homeless families in order to uh address the root causes of housing instability.

The 2026 San Francisco point in time count reports a 15% increase in family homelessness after doubling in two years earlier.

High rent prices paired with long shelter wait lists have families at risk of returning to homelessness once assistance expires eventually.

The mayor's budget has no long-term rental subsidies for low-income families who are facing houses.

Speaking of summaries, nice to meet you.

But thank you much, Carter.

Next speaker.

Uh hi, the supervisors.

My name is Miguel Carrera.

I work in the coalition on homelessness.

So I want to mention a couple of things.

So rent subsidies, short rent subsidies is not working for families, there's no working for anybody.

And I want to tell you why.

Because I see so many families when you provide short rent subsidies to the family, they walk in out from the apartment for the place that they live.

It's really rude.

When we when we when when we do these things, these issues to the families.

We cannot do that to the children.

When we see children working out to become homeless again, what we're doing really, we know we don't make any stabilization to the families.

We need to do something better.

We need to provide permanent subsidies to the families with children.

We need to provide subsidies to people who have disabilities.

We need to provide these subsidies to families, uh African American families.

We don't mention anything about African families.

What's going on with us?

We need to solve in this situation.

We need to do something to provide stability to all children to all families.

Please, please.

The subsidies have to be permanent.

Next speaker, please.

I'm currently you know here to advocate for long-term housing solutions and for um housing in the long term.

Thank you so much.

Thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

If you're if if you give me the chance, can I can I translate for this family?

Please start.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

She wants to give you the drawing that she did.

Yes, you could just uh leave it right there or or by the box next to the TV.

Next speaker, please.

Okay, that's me.

Um hi my name is Alan Chuba.

I work with the SRO Collaborative.

I'm part of a coalition of homelessness too.

And I'm here because last night I had a dinner with 20 families that live in the mission in SROs right now in a really bad conditions.

I'm working with DVI.

We are solving the problems.

We had an excellent person that is being working with us and solving the issues.

We're gonna do a task first in the Utah Street.

So just to let you know that the bathrooms are clogged, they don't have hot water.

We have like seven six, seven kids living right there, and it's really bad conditions.

They couldn't make it to come here because they need to work to make the money for the rent.

They pay a thousand dollars there, and they don't have even hot water or a bathroom.

So there these are their drawings.

So I'm gonna share it there.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Next speaker.

Next speaker.

Ojalá que nos ayude con eso largo plazo para que nuestros futuros cambia un poquito.

Muchas gracias.

So hi uh my name is Irma and I'm living with my kids in a hotel right now in the mission, and I'm here with all my team rights to ask you to help us to have uh better solutions.

We are living in a small room all together, and I'm here just to advocacy for more subsidies and long-term subsidies.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

It's a very small room, and these people need these long term subsidies, not these short term subsidies that are only for three years, five years.

Because what does that do?

Come on.

Really?

I'm serious.

What does that do?

These families need long term subsidies for their apartments.

They face so many challenges in these SROs.

It's not livable.

They need somewhere to live, somewhere to grow these children.

Really, here.

Let me show you the pictures, the houses.

Look at them.

Look at these drawings that these children drew.

They want these houses.

They want housing.

They want somewhere to live.

Here.

Here's another one.

And here is another one.

And then there's a drawing that was handed over there that says, I want a house, please.

So please, please, fund these long-term subsidies for these families.

Thank you, Christian Amendez.

Next speaker, please.

Yeah, my name is Sharana Kachalko, CAT C A L C O.

I live in South Dice House.

And I'm really happy with it.

This guy that's option down, because we rely on budget.

We gotta keep ourselves to the tune of what the city and federal and state administration say.

And yet I love it.

If it wasn't for them, I'm looking, I wouldn't have had a place to live for the last five and a half years.

He died in the source of last year for liberty cancer with just diagnosed the amount that we were given the teeth.

What I'm saying is it helped.

I couldn't imagine five years of living on the streets in a van.

These families need help.

The individuals need help.

Everybody needs help.

You gotta take care of kids.

And you gotta work for the kids.

You gotta work for the families.

You gotta support long-term subsidized buildings.

It's how other workers expert.

But thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Next speaker.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Cadest.

I'm with the coalition on homelessness.

Um we have so many families with different circum different circumstances that need these long-term housing subsidies.

Please put money into the permanent housing so people have a real pathway to stability and healing.

Thank you.

And thank you much.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Zach.

I live in an RV and I work with organizing my community and the RVs.

Um there's been some studies done on long-term versus short-term subsidy outcomes.

Long-term subsidies win by a mile.

Um, and a lot of people are concerned in their RVs about being offered these short-term rapid rehousing subsidies, about them returning to homelessness, and the data supports that.

At least 42% of people who are offered short-term subsidies return to homelessness in some form or another.

That number is halved or more with long-term subsidies.

People need long-term housing, long-term stability.

Um, and this is in comparison to self-navigation, which is called usual care.

Short-term subsidies is a pat on the back for yourselves to save some money, and to say that you're giving people homeless housing, but long-term subsidies actually do help people achieve stability for the long term.

Thank you, Zach.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name's Leah McGeever.

I'm here to support the long-term housing subsidies.

Um, I don't know.

It's like a city that can't take care of its kids.

Like, what good is that city?

It sounds like a pretty messed up city to me.

Pretty messed up society.

I've been following all the attacks that this government, which is composed of people, yourselves, uh, have been doing against homeless people, homeless kids.

And I mean, it's literally like abuse.

It's literally child abuse, child neglect.

I don't know why you're okay doing that.

Um I just I just don't get you.

Like, can you just like fund their housing long term?

They can leave McGee for next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

I'm happy to see you all.

San Francisco's voters passed Prop C with the clear intent to create a data-driven, depoliticized, accountable approach to solving the root causes of homelessness.

It is crazy that the San Francisco and California in general, being the fourth largest economy in the world, we're still asking for housing for folks that cannot afford rent in San Francisco.

It is crazy to see all these families here with these babies and um the mayor and the board of supervisors still questioning if this is actually necessary for the for the long term.

Um, it is very unfortunate that San Francisco is constantly, constantly fighting.

I'm talking about San Francisco, the people that hold the city up, constantly fighting for basic needs that humans deserve.

So I'm just here to continuously bring this up, fight for these causes because it's so embarrassing that I'm representing a Latino community and the community that needs housing.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon.

My name is Lucia.

I represent the San Francisco Latino Parity and Equity Coalition, 20 organizations that serve the Latino community.

And this is a serious issue for us.

Latinos are currently experiencing high levels of homelessness in a San Francisco's housing affordability crisis continues.

Hundreds of families remain just one missed paycheck, one rent craze, or one subsidy loss away from homelessness.

We shouldn't have to beg for long-term stability.

We can do this.

This city can do this.

We can offer family stability.

Thank you much, Lucia.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Israel Carmona, and I'm here first of all, I want to say thank you for listening.

We live in a hotel.

Necessitamos ayuda para salir de I.

We need some help to get out of there.

So right there, we don't even have a kitchen to cook, and we are just in a small room, and um what is that?

Can you do that?

And we're here to ask you for more subsidies in the long term.

Thank you.

Thank you much for your comments.

And seeing the other speakers in line, Madam Chair, completes our queue.

Seeing no more public commons, public common is now close.

So uh I think here's my suggestions and also uh and and put it out there for the for the public and for every um for the advocates here's um I I am in support of having spending more for the short term rental subsidies.

Let's get more families um that it's currently on the living and people living on the streets that they could actually have immediate rapid rehousing, and even though it's short-term, let's make sure that we uh get them shelter and get them um housing um and hotels, whatever it takes to support them to to get them um not have to sleep on the streets.

So that's one.

Um but I also am appreciative of putting in 98 million dollars on reserve, but what I want to see, and I want to suggest to the both the mayor and the department of homelessness and supporter housing and to this body as well as to advocate is that to be able to see in the head uh in the next six months, either in the middle of the fiscal years uh or even the next uh fiscal year, should the event that we say now we're running out of money for short-term um subsidies and that we want to see a longer term and extending these subsidies for housing, is that we tap into that ninety-eight million dollars of reserve, and specifically is really dedicated for rental subsidies, so that to turn into some of the short-term into a longer term, and to be able to help people to really be the not only stay housed, but to hopefully find uh long-term housing.

And I do understand, you know, having gone through what we've gone through last fiscal year and those conversations, is that I, you know, clearly there's also a capacity issue, meaning like the the kind of housing that we can offer to a lot of families in San Francisco.

There are there are probably times that we can offer voucher, but then they end up being outside of San Francisco, and I think that's just a lot of families want to stay in San Francisco, and we want them to stay in San Francisco.

So I think those are those are a few conversations about, you know, being able to provide short term subsidies in the immediate term and be able to figure out dollars that can make sure those go further, but along with uh like housing and actual housing, not just shelters, not just hotels, but actual housing in San Francisco, and that means that simultaneously get there gotta be a parallel path to not only extend rental subsidies, but to also build capacity for those long-term housing.

Uh it is easier said than done, but I I I'm just laying out for what I'm hearing from the advocates, and and how do we with the ninety-eight million dollars on reserve, and how do we like problem solve for the long term um beyond this one fiscal year at this moment is my suggestion for this committee and for for everyone involved in all the stakeholders.

Um, and thank you so much for all your work.

Um, I want to say that if I may, you know, as your last um, as your committee budget chair for the last session.

I I wanted to give where credit credit where credit was due, starting from you know, former budget committee chair, um Supervisor Sandra Leafiewer, and then Supervisor Hillary Ronan, and then myself, and then but with the partnership with Supervisor Jackie Fielder from last fiscal year, uh, as well as Supervisor Mayor Namagar from all this time to really make sure that we really look at propsy money, our city our home money, to to make sure we not only fulfill the promise that we have made to the voters, uh, but to also a lot of families that really in need of this funding.

I think that today uh what I'm looking at is a significant improvements from where we were when we've been to uh again once again to affirm the commitments that we housing first policy is the way to go ultimately when it comes to supporting um homeless individuals and homeless families.

Uh so I continue to urge this committee to see it through that lens when we when we comes to the discussion of how we spend um the propsy dollars.

Um, and again, uh not only that I I support the expansion of short-term rental subsidies, I would like to see that 98 million dollars on reserve to be spent on longer term rental subsidies uh when the time comes, and especially when we have capacity uh when we have the opportunity, be it in the middle of this fiscal year or the next fiscal year.

Um, so with that, colleagues, I would like to move these two items to full board uh with recommendation to the July 14 um meeting, second by Vice Chair Dorsey and a roll call, please.

And on that motion by Chair Chan, seconded by Vice Chair Dorsey, that both these items 17 and 18 be referred to the July 14th uh full board meeting.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, aye, member Sauter, Sauter, aye, member Walton, Walton, aye, member Mandelman, I Mandleman, I, Church Han.

I chan I re five eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, um, do we have any other business before us today?

Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

And I believe we're adjourning this meeting.

Yes.

Um, and so this meeting is now adjourned.