Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  June 28, 2018 9:00pm-10:01pm PDT

9:00 pm
>> supervisor ronen: is $300,000 in education. >> supervisor cohen: ok, thank you. and for clarification, that's $300,000 over two years? 's. >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> supervisor safai: it would be $300,000 in year one. >> supervisor cohen: we are all giving different numbers. i would really like it done, you know, -- the ask is really $600,000 is what you are asking for. i translate it -- based on what she was describing, the was talking in year one. it is desirable for it to be seen manifest in your two. that is the assumption i am making unless you indicate otherwise. >> supervisor safai: it would be under, sorry to interrupt. it would be under dph. >> supervisor cohen: ok but not education.
9:01 pm
>> supervisor safai: is under the category of public health. >> supervisor cohen: ok. fantastic. we got it. ok, so we've got $600,000 over two years. >> supervisor ronen: and then -- sorry, i'm just looking. my staff wants me to also share that the ask for the dvd would be spread across 39 different programs. >> supervisor cohen: and that's a $1.2 million? 's. >> supervisor ronen: that's right. >> supervisor cohen: ok. all right. thank you. 's. >> supervisor ronen: thank you so much. >> supervisor cohen: perfect. supervisor kim? hello.
9:02 pm
>> supervisor kim: in terms of the priorities for the citywide list which we are going over today, my highest priority has been in ensuring funding for our free city college program which has $1 million in budget allocation for the district. so, my preference would be $1 million for year one and year two. mattia, you know, have to look at the overall balance of the citywide ask and the district asked. i also happen to represent a district that has an overwhelming number of nonprofit organizations throughout the city. it is -- if my pot increases -- for me i prefer 1 million, 1 million. i understand -- >> supervisor cohen: this is just a soft temperature. we know where your desires are. spee den my preference is $1 million, $1 million.
9:03 pm
my number 1 priority is ensuring we continue to fun find the free city college program which we went out to get additional revenue from through proposition, w. and as many of you remember, the state law real estate transfer tax cannot be dedicated in taxes. which is why we did not set it aside. given many of my colleagues' hesitation around enclosing -- increasing that, i have not drafted a charter amendment for this year. it is our hope we can continue to find a program that many of us campaigned on and fulfil a promise. my first ask is to find summer sessions for a summer of 2019. the original agreement with mayor ed lee last february, west 5.4 million for year one and 5.4 million per year two to cover free state college in the fall and spring semester. it did not include funding summer. it was over a two year period ending on may 2019.
9:04 pm
given the immense success of free city college, i think far beyond what any of us had anticipated or predicted, would like to extend this to the summer semester which is a smaller semester and so the ask is smaller. $1.2 million. i want to put out there -- >> supervisor cohen: i want to acknowledge that is on the citywide spending plan spee tent it is. i thought i'd go over everything even if it is on the list. >> supervisor cohen: i am also communicating to people who are watching at home and in the chamber who may not have the spreadsheet in front of them. you did bring in $28 million just in the first year of us collecting revenue. of 28 million, only 6.4 went to the free city college program, 5.4 that was granted by the mayor coastal's office and a million-dollar reserve that this board granted last year. that is my request that we continue to fill the reserve fund for three city college.
9:05 pm
it is a volatile revenue source. it is not dependable. there are years that will get 20 million years i get a 40 million. in order to ensure it's stability during the down years we want to build up the reserve so when the down years, we can continue to fund the free city program. all of us understand how beneficial this program has been and, you know, how it has changed the lives of san franciscans. i don't want to go through the wall rigmarole, the city college has absolutely been one of the most important institutions in the country according to data looking at longitudinal studies around tax returns and bring people into the middle class. more than stanford and elite university is. it is community colleges that have brought more people in the middle class studying tax returns over the last 40 years than any other higher education institution. is important for us to fund that. the second request is to continue putting in a million dollars into the reserve every single year so we built up that fund. >> supervisor cohen: i have a question about that. it's her money already in the reserve?
9:06 pm
>> the idea is that every year during the high year we would add to the reserve so that in the down years when proposition w. does not bring in as high of a revenue return, that city college is prepared to be able to continue to fund free city college during those years. frankly, $1 million is not enough. it is very difficult to get over that. >> supervisor cohen: so, that answers my question that i was going to ask. how do we get to the number of $1 million? it is something that we passed last year, and it is just kind of an expectation. >> supervisor kim: yes, ideally, given that proposition w. brought in $20 million last year, i really wish that i was able to negotiate a higher dollar amount from the mayor's office. i think it should be at least 10 million. >> are we able to renegotiate that figure? >> supervisor cohen: let me ask the budget chair.
9:07 pm
>> supervisor kimand they've ob, because they have given us a complete project, they allocated those dollars to other programs and it is not specified. they had a larger budget or revenue to work with. >> supervisor cohen: are we able to renegotiate? speech and i would have to be a negotiation that would happen. has been signed with city college and all sorts of stakeholders. that would be a much broader conversation from my perspective should the m.o.u. want to be amended. >> supervisor cohen: it sounds like it has already caused -- but not one that we would be able to tackle today speak to -- >> supervisor kim: it is my intention that i begin working on negotiating for the next two years in my final six months of supervisors, to ensure some level of permanence and longevity. the source is brought in $28 million in the last year, and i think that we have not
9:08 pm
gotten our fair share out of that new revenue for the program that many of us campaigned upon. buffer this year, given where we are today, what i'm asking for is $2.2 million. there's only 1 million in the fund now. the reserve fund was allocated last year. >> supervisor cohen: the reserve fund will be drawn upon when there is not enough money that up w. bring us in to fund city college. >> supervisor kim: you know i apologize -- >> supervisor cohen: at what point is the trigger polled that we begin to draw it down there? speech and no, i understand the question. i don't know if we articulated that in the m.o.u. i don't think -- my understanding is that -- i'm happy to work with you on this if it hasn't been articulated, but it would be in years at the real estate transfer tax did not
9:09 pm
bring in as much revenue as other years. we anticipate that's when there is a recession or down years again. it is not a very stable revenue source. >> supervisor cohen: so this fund, will continue to grow and grow and grow in a very robust years? i would imagine, when there is an economic downturn -- you know, i don't know if an economic downturn would lead to the downturn of transfer tax. i understand in some ways there is some correlation speech and there's been a level of trust with city college around the reserve fund. they haven't drawn down upon it. >> supervisor cohen: what if we accrue 20 million dollars kwee for the future board to be able to be in a position to stop funding?
9:10 pm
that is my question. i'm not trying to, but i wanted to know, once it is committed, it is locked in. >> supervisor kim: yeah. >> supervisor cohen: the money that is in the fund, it is that set up where it is growing? it is collecting interest? it is not just money just sitting there? speech and that is a good question. i don't know the answer to that. speech and my guess, although this is a good question for the controller's office, just sitting with the larger account that our treasurer holds. it is gaining interest but not accruing to the city college reserve fund. it is occurring to the entire city budget. >> supervisor cohen: i see. >> that is correct.
9:11 pm
this is just a general fund allocation. it is the investment by the treasurer very short-term because many of the city treasurer to be very liquid. unlike the pension fund for example, which is investing after a long time, it will be invested -- interest in this account, like all general fund accounts accrues back to the general fund and you make choices regarding that. it is part of the revenues that make up the general fund revenue base. >> supervisor cohen: ok. thank you. you can continue. >> supervisor kim: thank you. >> supervisor cohen: or is that it? speech and that is my highest priority. i want to express support for several citywide offices that other colleagues have seated. but to go, i think i have a few more that is specific to our office.
9:12 pm
they are also on my citywide list. it is a project that is temporally activation of a site that is dedicated for 100% affordable housing. but because of several projects in the pipeline, it will not get built up for 5-10 years. it is one of the most problematic intersections in the tenderloin neighborhood and that is why they have asked us to activate that corner while we are in the design and construction process. so, the reason why they haven't asked for an additional $500,000 on top of the mining that the city has artie granted them, is because construction costs have gone up tremendously. three times the development process in our district. what would occur if we don't find the half-million is that they can take out loans to fulfil the remaining plumbing improvements that are necessary for this former post office to serve low income minority
9:13 pm
vendors. however, it would increase rent costs for those vendors pick one of the commitments that they have made to the tenderloin neighborhood is they have a menu note that our residents can afford to. what they are committing to is a five-dollar meal at menu. every day there will be at least one vendor that provides a complete meal at five dollars encouraging residents to eat their, and they will also ensure it is a healthy meal. part of how they plan on subsidizing -- subsidizing this plan is keeping the rents as low as possible for the vendors who tend to be women of colour and immigrant owned businesses. they are actively recruiting within the tenderloin. it is not to the market neighborhood to encourage women who are interested in this program. if we advance fill this half a million dollars, it is a loan they will not have to pay back over time, which adds to the rent cost for the vendors in the
9:14 pm
building. that is just to explain where the ask is coming from. is essentially a subsidy for food and small business owners in the tenderloin neighborhood. i would look at it less as a construction ask and construction improvement ask and more as a subsidy for our small business owners to be successful and also for our residents to have access to fresh and healthy food at an affordable price. >> supervisor ronen: do you mind if i trip and very quick? i have to run. i want supervisor kim to introduce that item but i want to express my strong support for it as well. it is a community-based organization that is based in my district. while this sight is an supervisor kim's district, many of the vendors who will be working there are trained and live in my district. it really is a citywide organization and program that
9:15 pm
helps low income, often immigrant owned entrepreneurs begin to get trained on building a business. so, what i love about the organization, as supervisor kim mentioned, a is they provide services for so many fronts. you know, often times, the people who start businesses through this organization would not have an ability to gain employment anywhere else. so it is one of the very unique organizations. and they think in terms -- they think in such holistic terms that it is not only that they are training, and it is a workforce program, but then they are helping small businesses grow and employ others, and helping to provide low-cost meals to the community. if you think about the number of levels at which they are working
9:16 pm
to help our city and help our residents become self-sufficient, to me it is an incredibly worth the investment. i wanted to wait for supervisor kim to introduce it and express my strong support for that. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim, back to you real quick. what is the allocation for this for economic development? >> supervisor kim: it would be under o. e. w. d. >> supervisor cohen: and how much? >> supervisor kim: it is at $500,000. >> supervisor cohen: ok. >> supervisor kim: request that route maintain high priorities on my list is a program -- the female supervisors began to support several years ago which is the women cancer services funding. it is currently housed in chantilly at $400,000. we see incredible inequity in terms of services provided --
9:17 pm
healthcare services provided via gender throughout the city. part of the reason why several of us support augmenting the women's cancer, in particular breast cancer programming is the federal and state level, there is general bias for funding illnesses that impact men and they are not as -- they are not as many opportunities for nonprofit the impact women disproportionately. i am open to the dollar amount of $400,000 which was funded in the past. it will be a cut if it is reduced in the past. i'm hockey -- happy to work with my colleagues on that ask. >> supervisor cohen: is at 400 in year one or fun hunt -- 400,000 over two years. >> supervisor kim: it is the actual dollar amount that we have been funding in past years. >> supervisor cohen: ok. thank you. >> supervisor kim: my next request, although it is a big
9:18 pm
structural issue that deserves a conversation, as hospital transfers being delivered by the deputy sheriff. it is $1.7 million, although we can reduce it by starting later in the fiscal year. >> supervisor cohen: that $1.7 million, is that one year or two years? >> supervisor kim: it is a continuous program but we can start it later in the year. >> supervisor cohen: there could be cost savings. >> supervisor kim: honestly, it would take time to ramp up the program anyway. currently we have police officers that courier inmates and arrestees back and forth from the site of arrest or from jail, to hospitals, and then chief officers that watch over the inmate while they are getting hospital services. sfpd officers are significantly more expensive than the deputy sheriff. this would shift this work to the deputy sheriff. they are a little bit more
9:19 pm
affordably priced per individual then the police officers are a. it would free up the police officers to do the work that our constituents demand, which is more foot to beat officer beat e eyes on the ground. it is essentially a savings because it is a shifting out of one budget into another. it is something that i would like some discussion and consideration on. it is a large ask. i would not have it start on july 1st because it is not ready. >> supervisor cohen: i have a couple questions. have you been in touch with their respective departments? the chief and the sheriff? >> supervisor kim: not the police chief, yes to the sheriff. >> supervisor cohen: could you share with us -- i mean i don't know. i haven't talked to either one of them. i don't know if this is something they are open to or if it is possible. >> supervisor kim: this is something sheriff hennessy has told me as a program they would like to do. and actually it is something they've talked about for years.
9:20 pm
it has been this overall discussion in terms of how we divide up duties between the deputy sheriff and our police officers. there are certain things that i think our deputy sheriff can do and should do at a lower cost, and it frees up officers to be on the ground and walk our core doors and do the work that our constituents ask us to do on a daily basis. >> supervisor cohen: i will pave it to the controller or the interim budget director. this is a $1.7 asked. and it is unclear to me if this is a one time -- >> supervisor kim: it is not a one-time ask. if we decide to support the program, it will continue through remaining years until we decide to shift the program back out. >> supervisor cohen: so you raised an interesting idea. shouldn't the mayor be funding this clingy week and initiated, right? maybe several pilot programs? the transfer. >> supervisor kim: we could also -- and i'm happy to work on
9:21 pm
this today, is figure out a type of pilot program where we can look at it. the sheriff's do believe they cannot do this without a minimum of ten sheriff's that are dedicated to this program. six at a time. but, you know, not everyone is on duty for the full year. i also think we need to give it time before we actually begin the program. if we began ant in january, the cost would come down by at least 50%. just in year one. but in year two it beat the full 1.786 million. >> supervisor stefani: tbyte supervisor kim. i have asked us about in terms of the hospital transfers but the other transfers. i have asked these questions in committee and i have been told by the mayor's budget director, if you want to add, that is something they are studying and they are looking at.
9:22 pm
i have talked to sheriff hennessy about this and i've asked questions of chief scott but i think it is definitely something worth pursuing. i don't know if we can do it at this time, so i would like to hear from the budget office in terms of where they are at in terms of looking at that. >> supervisor kim: we looked at this question in relationship to the police staffing research that we did throughout the mayor's phase of the budget. it has begged more questions to be followed up on and answered in terms of logistics, you know, holding style facilities. i think there is something to dig deeper an in there. i think it aligns with the civilianization question that was asked related to police staffing and the follow-up that the board ha board has requeste. in terms of that. i would -- it could align nicely with that analysis. but i think we are open to digging deeper to understand the logistical issues between the sheriff's office and the police department. i wouldn't feel like it is ready at this time to execute, in my opinion. >> supervisor cohen: supervisor kim, how do you want us to handle this budget
9:23 pm
request? >> supervisor kim: i would like for it to be under consideration. what i can do is i am happy to work with supervisors that are interested in exploring the program. we can figure out a way to condense it and i am happy to talk to the mayor as well. >> supervisor cohen: what you like to see this on the budget reserves? >> supervisor kim: that would be interesting. yeah, i would. >> supervisor cohen: that way the money could possibly be earmarked and then when a plan is created and agreed upon, then it can be drawn down at that particular time. that is one idea that i just have off the top of my head. i will probably look to do that after we satisfy the first priority, like the one million-dollar free city college fund. >> supervisor kim: yes, i know i come in with big asks. overall, i think it is important for the city. >> supervisor kim: agreed. >> supervisor kim: i just want
9:24 pm
to overall continue to express my support for -- >> supervisor cohen: pardon me, supervisor he had a question he wanted to discuss. >> supervisor yee: continue with this concept of transferring responsibility from the police to the sheriff, since you haven't spoken to the police department, the question i would ask is how many police officers does this free up? i think it is alluding to kelly's remarks that -- we had a long discussion about how many police officers we could free up to get them to 250 police officers that they want to increase. this could be a factor. i want to make sure we take that into consideration. otherwise we are just adding cost and not really reducing any of the costs.
9:25 pm
>> supervisor cohen: supervisors? >> supervisor kim: this leads into a larger discussion that has been occurring on the budget committee. civilianization as positions within the police department where police officers are filling jobs that civilians can easily handle. whether it is it, hr that other types of activities that we see in cities and have civilians do versus police officers. and i think an overall conversation about what deputy sheriffs can do, whether it is special events, foot patrol, but also transfers from jail, transfers from hospitals and station transfers. this is something, -- it is a cost-saving but free freeze off please -- frees our police officers again. i think it leads into the conversation of whether we need to increase police officer staffing or whether we can free up police officers that are currently doing other things that i don't think we typically
9:26 pm
view as police work. does it feed into the larger conversation. i'm happy to work with supervisor cohen's office today on figuring out a way for us to pilot this next year, and also push the conversation. it is one we have been having for years. i think if we put something on reserve, it forces the parties to come together and make something happen next year. that will be my final push for that. overall, i want to continue to support some of the asks that are on chair :-colon's list which includes out of school time, early education, youth services. i'm a huge proponent on anything that involves rent subsidy pools. we are making up again for where the nation had failed us around housing. the federal government absolutely used to be both in the business of building housing and subsidizing housing for large numbers of americans. housing has never been affordable to every single american in this country.
9:27 pm
we simply cannot be given the cost of construction and management. it is a good that must be subsidized while the federal government has gone out of that business of building housing, and our section eight program, the city has been making up for where section eight has disappeared on that's. you will not get any better under the trump administration. we know subsidies work and we know that they keep families, youth, seniors, author of our streets and out of the shelter programs and out of situations of incredible insecurity and precariousness. anything that involves increasing or continuing the rent subsidy program, i think is an incredible investment of our public taxpayer dollars, and it is much more cost-effective in relation to actually addressing people once they hit our streets. finally, and i believe that this is on someone else's list, was additional support for the resource centre. i'm not sure where that
9:28 pm
conversation occurred, but it does have citywide services. and so i want to express support for that as well. those are my priorities. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. ok, colleagues. i just want to thank everyone for their flexibility. we are kind of in a new era, a new place where we are trying to do and handle our budget in a different manner. i appreciate you taking time to come and be part of this discussion and articulating where your priorities are. it's important for transparency reasons that people know what we are advocating for and what is being advocated for and ultimately what is funded so they can observe the process. i think the first thing we need to do is figure out what our
9:29 pm
budget is going to be. we need to come to some form of an agreement when it comes to the individual district allocation. so -- i don't think we ourselves have answer that question, but we have to watch what people advocating for $2,000,000.20 people advocating for $1 million. or one million-dollar allocations. do you have a preference, supervisor you? this is 1 million or two. when we see eight two
9:30 pm
million-dollar ask, that is 1 million -- excuse me. >> supervisor yee: well, there's a bit of confusion too. this million-dollar is started, actually 20 years ago. last year was where we made an upfront $1 million, and the year before we renegotiated. that is when farrell was still, you know, the budget person. and people -- at that time, basically had different asks. some asks where $500,000 in summer $3 million. and then we dwindled it down. at the end of the negotiation, we just said, you know, it is fair for each district to have close to a million as possible for total for year one and two.
9:31 pm
that is what happened two years ago. last year, i was asked to basically save for the district. i went under the assumption that if the total is 1 million, and i kept to that. other people -- i wasn't aware of that. >> supervisor cohen: to be fair, i wasn't aware of that either. that is news to me and although we cut to the director off guard to, i don't necessarily recall it that way. i remember being very strict 1 million and that was it eric supervisor ronan and i have fought to the bitter end on it. >> supervisor ronen: -- >> supervisor yee: . that's my recollection. i am confined to support the million, whichever way we want to -- allocate for year one or two. hopefully, next year through a cycle again, there might be
9:32 pm
hopefully some additional funding that we could allocate. i support the million mainly because i don't want it to just start ticking away from the general pot. we have all these big items that are necessary, also. however, the majority of the supervisors wanted for their own district. then i certainly don't want to shortchange my district. >> supervisor cohen: of course. i understand. we are all leaning towards 1 million. supervisor stephanie? >> supervisor stefani: thank you. i have the same feelings about that as a supervisor he just expressed in terms of keeping it at 1 million right now given the amount we have. i think we have 33 million right now. i don't know if we will be able to grow that a little bit more based on other factors. but based on the citywide ask, and the importance of the ask
9:33 pm
and everything we've been discussing, i think right now, $1 million is a good start. >> supervisor cohen: ok. supervisor fewer, do you have any thoughts? spee du 1.2 million over two years. >> supervisor cohen: 1.2 million to be allocated over two years? ok. >> supervisor sheehy: so i'm comfortable with the million and, you know, this list. i would enter into a different discussion for additional money, and, you know, at that point we could decide whether we might want to include more. >> supervisor cohen: based on the raw pole that we are leaning towards $1 million. possibly some change. i am looking to the budget director, and i am looking to the controller. you tell me what budget we are looking for. what is the pot of money we are dealing with this year? as you know you heard us say we
9:34 pm
are trying to grow it, still. where are we in that growth? [please standby]
9:35 pm
>> supervisor kim: it does not begin to collect revenue until january 1. now, there is a pending state initiative ordinance that could repeal proposition c, however, whether we like the negotiations or not, it's possible that the initiative won't be put on the ballot and we'll know that by thursday afternoon. i think -- which is tomorrow. i think it behooves us to put it on the budget, where we begin to allocate those dollars. 15% of prop c was dedicated to the general fund. the san francisco labor council was a huge proponent of this measure and i do think it would be a good idea for the budget committee to include proposition c on reserve, assuming that the measure is not overturned either this week or in november , assuming that
9:36 pm
there is a state ballot measure, and that we begin to allocate those -- those expenses today. and i've been in conversations with the controller's office along with supervisor yee on this issue. >> supervisor cohen: so what does that figure, supervisor kim, prop c, that you're asking for us to consider putting on, i guess, reserve is what i'm hearing? >> supervisor kim: yes. it would be half of the -- >> supervisor yee: half of 150. >> supervisor cohen: no, supervisor -- let's pivot to the -- >> just to talk about some of the numbers very briefly, we talked about this very briefly at the beginning of june. prop c and actually prop g were two taxes adopted by the voters that aren't assumed in the budget as it exists today. prop c is not included in the budget at the moment, and
9:37 pm
that -- 50 million in the first year of the two-year budget, 50 million in the second year of the two year budget. prop g, as supervisor kim mentioned, goes into effect january 1, so the first full year value of that tax would accrue into the second year of the two-year budget. we approximate that at approximately 140 to $146 million for the first full year. some part of that would likely be realized in the first year? should the board of supervisors pass trailing legislation that would allow prepayments to occur, it's probably -- and this is an order of magnitude estimate, it's probably a quarter of that annual revenue would be accrued in the first year, but neither of those are included in the budget today. for that, it would require the mayor's office to grow the budget under the rules of the charter. and supervisor kim said, if you did wish to appropriate them
9:38 pm
now, we would have to place them in reserve given the constitutional requirements we have hanging over them. >> supervisor yee: i thought the idea was to introduce legislation to do that administratively, to ask for that growth. can we actually put something in reserve when it's not in the budget already? >> supervisor cohen: yeah. >> supervisor yee: that's what i thought. >> supervisor cohen: ben says no. >> if you're appropriating the funds in the budget, we would place the funds in the budget. if you're placing them in via supplemental appropriation, it would accompany the supplemental appropriation. different paths, same out come. >> supervisor cohen: let's do this. supervisor kim, you've come with a long and hefty list. >> supervisor kim: i
9:39 pm
apologize. >> supervisor cohen: no apologies. if we can not consider the prop c. >> supervisor kim: yeah, i just want the members of the committee to be thinking about it. i think it is important for us to appropriate them and put them in reserve early in the year, and we'll have a sense on thursday whether the initiative will get pulled or not because they're currently negotiating with the biggest backers of this. so if that is pulled, i think we should go ahead and appropriate the funds in our reserve. >> supervisor cohen: one thing i want to point out is in youth services early childhood education we do have a $2 million bridge as emergency health care spending. >> supervisor yee: let me jump in. regardless of what happens to prop c, definitely, we're not going to be able to see any and utilize until the end of the year if we're lucky, so the idea, then, is to make sure
9:40 pm
that we have some funding in there. >> supervisor cohen: right. >> supervisor yee: for this year. >> supervisor cohen: i understand that. i was communicating that to supervisor kim because i wasn't aware if she understood that we've got a little insurance built into the citywide spending plan. so forecasting into the future, it's positive, prop c does manifest, there is a gap, and it's possible we wouldn't see those funds until 2019? >> supervisor kim: january 1. >> supervisor yee: we wouldn't see the funds until later. >> supervisor kim: but the revenue accrues. >> supervisor yee: yeah, but we won't collect it until march. >> supervisor kim: we can spend -- okay. we can have this conversation later. the funding accrues on january 1. my intention is that we should begin programming on january 1, understanding with a conservative estimate of the accrual and begin funding these programs. but we can have this
9:41 pm
conversation offline. >> supervisor cohen: so i think the point that i'm making, i think supervisor yee was the one that pushed this, and the reason why it's on the spending plan is that there's $2 million allocated in that gap so that we can start funding programs. >> supervisor kim: i understand what that is. >> supervisor cohen: okay. okay. all right. >> supervisor kim: i think we should have an offline conversation about this. >> supervisor cohen: all right. so before we go further, you guys have expressed an interest in expanding the budget and growing the budget. i think one thing that would make our argument more compelling and succinct statement or succinctally putting down three to five bullets of how we're allocating that money or what our desires are. i can't just say hey, give me some money, mr. mayor, so i'm hoping you can guide me on this on where we can grow this -- grow this pot of money. so supervisor yee, i'm going to look to you because you've
9:42 pm
definitely done this before, and wanted to see if you wanted to start the conversation. if not, i mean, i'm happy to take a stab at -- >> supervisor yee: i thought you asked for a small recess so that -- >> supervisor cohen: so the reason why i wanted to push the conversation a little bit further is because the budget director is going to go back to the mayor's office, and she's going to say look, this committee has said they wanted some more money, and this is the areas they're going to spend it in. so for example, today, we've said free city college -- we've got the free city college summer allocation on our plan. can you give us another $1 million for the free city college fund. so that's $1 million allocated. then okay, we've also heard la
9:43 pm
cocina is another priority for at least three of the supervisors, so that's another idea we would like to move in that direction. >> supervisor yee: so is it your intent to continue this discussion to get us to a certain amount so we can go back and ask the mayor to support it? >> supervisor cohen: that is correct. >> supervisor yee: okay. let's go. no recess. >> supervisor cohen: no, no, no, no recess. like, the discussion is happening now and in session. >> supervisor yee: right, right. >> supervisor cohen: okay. no recess. okay. supervisor safai? >> supervisor safai: thanks. i just wanted to clarify. also, are you saying -- also, the kind of a larger question about whether we want additional money over two years for district along with a citywide ask? it doesn't add up, is that the larger -- >> supervisor cohen: yes, we can take that in that direction as well. >> supervisor safai: i think what i've heard is people want
9:44 pm
more citywide, and i've heard that, but i also support a lot of the requests that are on the -- kind of the larger requests, both district and citywide. so i think that's a strong enough of an argument to ask the mayor's office to go back and see if they can find some additional money. i do also want to chime in on la cocina. i did put that in my original request to your office, so i didn't know if you were referencing me. >> supervisor cohen: i was referencing you. >> supervisor safai: i wanted the public and those watching at home or in the future to understand that was on my list. >> supervisor cohen: i understand, and i wanted to recognize this is a conversation around policy or a policy discussion, not organization because that wouldn't be legal. >> supervisor safai: i know. i'm joking. i said for the organizations that are listening, that's what i said. >> supervisor cohen: oh, okay. >> supervisor safai: for the general public and those listening and to be here.
9:45 pm
i just wanted to see that. >> supervisor cohen: okay. to be fair, the deputy city attorney is listening, and his eyebrows raised. >> supervisor safai: okay. for the department city attorney. sorry i took it that direction. >> supervisor cohen: okay. >> supervisor safai: and i do want to say i agree with the larger argument about wanting additional funding for a two-year cycle for your district request along with additional funding for our citywide based on the priorities that we put forward. thank you. >> supervisor cohen: all right. thank you very much. i want to give supervisor fewer -- oh, excuse me, supervisor sheehy? >> supervisor sheehy: well, i was just going to make a point. we know that there's 5.3 million in additional revenue that the controller has identified, plus a 1.5 million that we identified in savings from this morning, so that's 6.8. so i guess for me, still, i like the list in front of us.
9:46 pm
i think it should be funded. i -- if we are going to put forward things that we want to be funded, i would take everything everybody mentioned plus a district wide ask and take it to them, rather than trying to make choices now amongst the various things we've identified to make sure we've got money -- 'cause we can have that debate, but what number are we trying to get to? >> supervisor cohen: sure. the controller will standup and let us know. >> i don't know that i can do the math that quickly. obviously, the value of the different items that were discussed here over the last couple of hours are dramatically in excess of the 6.8 million, so i think part of the exercise is among the different priorities that have been talked about here, in a world where funds are finite, kind of what does the final package look like for the board? >> supervisor sheehy: but the mayor has already submitted his budget priorities.
9:47 pm
>> the discussion today, supervisor, this was tens of millions of dollars of discussion over the last couple of hours. it's up to you how you want to structure the conversations with the mayor's office. >> supervisor sheehy: i guess i'd like to make hard decisions given how much money we have. and so -- 'cause what are we trying to develop a basket of funding for? what's our number? are we going to come up with $10 million that we're going to spend? >> supervisor cohen: i think the problem with what you're asking, we've got $3 million ask, and he said oh, $3 million? i was prepared to give you 8. we've got to go in with the strongest strategy of where we want to go in. if we come in there with a $24 million ask, he's going to say no. whittle us down, where are your priorities. so i'm just not trying to waste
9:48 pm
time. i'm trying to come up with something that's reasonable that we've deliberated on and that's important to us. >> supervisor sheehy: okay. >> supervisor cohen: one of the things that i've heard that's important to us is that there's an actual extra $1 million. that's $22 million. that's not going to start the conversation. we've already got a $1 million allocation, and we ask for another million, that's $11 million. i was trying to have a conversation to understand where people's priorities are, and the one thing that i heard consistently is if we can grow the pot, then, i would like that pot to be grown and go into budget allocation -- i mean, district allocations. so that is -- that is, i think, a little bit more of a realistic start. and the mayor's not going
9:49 pm
anywhere. he's committed to be here all day until our work is done, so there'll be multiple opportunities to come back to negotiate. so we just need -- i think the ball is in our court, and we should be signaling where the priorities are that are outside of what -- and where he considered. i don't know if that sounds reasonable to people. i'm looking a little bit to the veterans that have been on here. >> supervisor yee: no, you're absolutely right, chair cohen. what we're trying to do -- i think we're trying to do is we identified with the b.l.a. and everybody else a certain amount of money that was in the mayor's budget in which we could then suggest that these are the things that we would like to add back into the budget. that pot has grown a little bit since this morning. i think it was at 31 this
9:50 pm
morning. i'm just rounding off -- and we identified another 1.5. and then, there's the revision in terms of more incomes coming in at 5.3, so that's 6.8 over what was in there this morning. and then, we didn't even talk about the technical adjustment reserves, which is -- i'm not getting clear numbers. it could be 4 million -- so what i'd like to do -- what i'd like us to do is at least -- okay. we probably have at least 80 million or 60 million just from this afternoon's discussion. so what we need to do is get it down to something reasonable so we could start negotiating it. and the reasonableness could be 45 million, 40 million, depending on what the real numbers are? >> supervisor cohen: okay. why don't i propose this.
9:51 pm
we heard a lot of information. thank you for your priorities. what if i were myself and my staff to put it down into another list, into another master list. we would update the website so everyone would have a chance to look at that, and we could start from that so that's a little bit of a stronger starting off point. >> supervisor yee: before you do that, chair cohen -- >> supervisor cohen: what did you say? >> supervisor yee: before you do that, i guess what i did and some of us did was just rattle off, here's some more things that i'd like to see funded, here's an amount. and when the other supervisors came in, some of them gave more rationale and so forth, and i was actually holding back on that discussion. >> supervisor cohen: would you like to say some more? >> supervisor yee: in terms of understanding why i'm asking for it, i thought we were going to have this discussion now, rather than -- but when i heard the other supervisors, when they gave rationale, i said
9:52 pm
geez, i wonder if we're going to have an opportunity. all we did was rattle off just a bunch of numbers. >> supervisor cohen: yes. because we're a committee, we have a lot more time, and i wanted to -- we can have that discussion now. that's not a problem, and you can certainly give the rationale behind the numbers that you presented, and then, i think, at that point, we do need to take a little bit of a break. i'm proposing probably for an hour so that we can cleanup the list so that it's reflective of what we heard. >> supervisor yee: okay. >> supervisor cohen: okay. supervisor, i'm happy to hear your rationale. >> supervisor yee: i'll do the easy ones first. i think i mentioned that i would like to see something in our vision zero policy or pedestrian safety. >> supervisor cohen: you did. >> supervisor yee: we actually have nothing in there. and one of the things that we don't fund a whole lot is the pedestrian safety education piece that's one of the three
9:53 pm
e's -- enforcement, engineering, and education. and this is a program that actually has been proven to work, and i'd like to see us put some funding behind sort of our policy, and that's really to me, the amount that i'm asking for is very small, actually. 50,000. so that's the explanation for that. i have been advocating that we need to look at foster children a lot more closely because again, eventually, some of them will end up to be our -- what we do know is the foster kids are actually able to thrive and move forward with their lives is when they have some stable adult in their lives. and then, some of these kids
9:54 pm
that are in foster care, they move from one foster parent to another foster parent, and i found that from just people's -- the kids themselves actually talking about what has helped them in their lives are these court ordered special advocates, and we don't have any -- we haven't really -- the city has not supported that in the past, and i'd like to see us -- >> supervisor cohen: what is the reason why the city hasn't supported them in the past? is it because the program is inefficient? is the program -- i don't know. tell me why. >> supervisor yee: yeah, i'll tell you exactly why. it's something that was promoted throughout the united states to say well, you know, let's have this certain type of program through the courts, and there's no money for it. and so all these -- but if you could find people to play this role, we'll make this a special
9:55 pm
cord ordered advocate. so what happens is nonprofits formed through the years in every state -- not every state, but every location -- in san francisco, there's one, in oakland, there's one. they formed a nonprofit, and the direction they've taken has been in the past to try to raise money. but it's pretty limited how much they could raise from private donors, and what i'm seeing is when i look at the numbers, i don't have the exact numbers on me, but basically, there's about two thirds of the kids don't have this, and not all of them do need it. so what we're trying to do is find some more funding -- >> supervisor cohen: you have a population that's underserved? >> supervisor yee: yes. in san francisco -- in san francisco, there are 1200 young people separated from their
9:56 pm
families each year. this is each year, and put into foster home systems. because of the scarcity, actually, many of these kids are forced to live outside of the city with an adult that's going to follow them. in the past two years, over 50,000 -- over the past two years, they were able to put another 60 more foster youth through this program. so what we're lacking is about -- that there's about 360 foster youth that can really use this program that doesn't have that right now. and that -- meaning that if there's 360, about 900 or 800 of them, probably, it's not as crucial for them because they're younger in general, but
9:57 pm
those kids, when they enter their teen years, they're going from one thing to another thing. need some stability. so those are the numbers. and even the amount i'm asking is not going to reach it. >> supervisor cohen: what's the amount that you're asking for? >> supervisor yee: 50,000. >> supervisor cohen: okay. thank you. >> supervisor yee: then, there's the employment for workforce. again, this is something that it wasn't really brought up during our -- our budget meetings because right in the middle of that, we -- i actually held a -- what do you call that? a hearing on employment for
9:58 pm
seniors and people with disabilities, and that the services for them -- and it's an agreement by different departments that came in to talk about it, that there's a lack of attention and there's a need for it, and nobody's really studied it, but almost every department said yeah, i heard it, i heard it, and they haven't done much around those issues. and some of the populations are -- are the ones that we are already talking about, whether they're homeless or under employed, but there's others that are those that are on fixed incomes and social security, they have retired, they're 62 or 63, and they were okay ten years ago, but the amount that they still receive isn't enough, so they have to go back to work, and there's no pathway for them. and there's two categories of people that need it.
9:59 pm
one are the true professionals that have been -- have a lot of experience. and they probably have a little bit more access to getting some part-time position, but those that are probably -- were in the workforce and the type of trainings they had five years ago probably wouldn't be appropriate, so they need to be retrained and supported, and there are avenues to do that. i'm asking that we increase the amount to $1 million for the workforce for seniors. that is a very vulnerable population because we're finding that some of these seniors are not able to afford the newer rents now are becoming the ones that are homeless. so let's do something to prevent this. that's my ask for employment. and related to seniors is --
10:00 pm
i've asked for another 500,000 to help those seniors that have to really need to go into group housing, and basically, what we're seeing is a loss of those units. 20% decrease of this type over the last few years in san francisco. so we're losing more and more of them because of the cost of running these things. and this past funding is administered by the department of public health, so they have something that has not grown for forever. and the rate that they get pre reimbursed, the providers of these group homes, have not changed in six years. so what i want to do is not keep on bleeding these types of services that are so crucial to keep our seniors that need a little more assistance stay in san francisco. a lot of them are -- need these type of