Assisting us with this broadcast this morning. Madam clerk, do we have any announcements . Yes, silence all cell phones and Electronic Devices and completed speaker phones and documents to be included as part of the file should be submitted to the clerk, items acted upon will appear on the board of supervisors agenda, unless otherwise stated. We will not be having a board of supervisors meeting next tuesday do you to the holiday. Madam clerk, item one . Item one,resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a purchase and Sale Agreement with the city of Pleasanton Pleasanton , for the conveyance by the city and county of San Francisco, acting through the San Francisco Public Utilities commission sfpuc , to the city of pleasanton, consisting of approximately 3. 18 acres of Real Property located at 401 and 403 old bernal avenue, pleasanton, california for 4,200,000; adopting findings under the California Environmental quality act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and authorizing the director of property and or the sfpucs general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resolution we have got russell from the sftpuc to present on this item. Good morning. Good morning, supervisor and thank you for the opportunity to appear. So the puc is selling some under utilized property in order to offset costs for our Capitol Improvement program. We have been working for almost a year with the citys Real Estate Services division to issue Public Notices and market, and solicit bids for our under utilized properties. We accepted an offer for one property that has two addresses, 401, and 403, old brunell avenue. And then 3 residential sized lots at helen drive. And first we will show you a picture of the pleasant on property, this is a remnant of a very large parcel that we sold many years ago. Zoned public and industrial. We acquired the property when the city as a whole acquired the assets and properties from the Spring Valley Border Company in 1930. This property was used for ground Water Operations until 1949. And in or december 13th, 2006, our commission declared the property surplus to our utility needs. And in attempting to sell the property, we worked again with City Real Estate which issued a request to proposal foz commercial real estate brokerrage, and City Real Estate selected caulers because it complied and it had the lower rate of 2. 75 percent, the budget Analyst Report had a little discrepancy. Beginning in on february 25, of 2016, we complied with the california Surplus Property statute and the ordinance by issuing notices to all public agencies and nonprofit housing groups that required notice. We received no letters of interest from any housing sponsors or public entities. This conveyance conforms with the citys general plan. On november 16th, the Planning Department found the sale of the property consistent with the eight priority policies of the planning code. Our bureau of Environmental Management determined that the sale of the property is not a project under sequa. In may of last year, an amazer valued the of 8. 9 million, another appraiser reviewed and confirmed that the original valuation was valid. And during our bidding process, we accepted the highest responsible bid of 4. 2 Million Dollars, that was from the city of pleasant on. Soliciting these bids, they marketed the property for 25 weeks. We due to the extensive marketing period and public noticing period, we felt confident that the two week call for offers was sufficient, because we knew who the bitteders bidders would likely bidders would be, they received, three bids, on november 7th, 2016, we notified the city that it was the highest bidder and selected that bid. The city council has already approved this purchase and Sale Agreement. The revenue again from this sale will be used to support our capitol programs. And not only in gaining revenue, we will save over 5,000 dollars a year in property taxes and maintenance costs. Do you have any questions that i may ask . Thank you. I dont see any questions just yet. Okay. So at this point i want to turn to the budget and legislative analyst, mr. Harvy rose, good to see you back in one piece. Thank you, madam chair, members of the committee. And on page 5 of our report, we note that the net proceeds to the sfpuc from the sale of the subject property are 4 million 95,000 and that is shown in table two on page 5. We also note that the sfpuc pays both property taxes and maintenance costs on the subject property resulting in the savings of the puc. Of approximately 5184 dollars per year after the sale of the property. We do recommend that you approved this legislation. Well, it you very much for the presentation. Colleagues do you have any questions for the bla . All right, thank you puc we are going to go to Public Comment at this time. Thank you. Ladies and gentlemen, as Public Comment you will have two minutes, you will hear a soft chime indicating 30 second remainder, anyone on item one . Please do so. Seeing none, Public Comment closed. I will make a motion to send fourth the positive recommendation to the full board. Thank you and that passes would ut objection, thank you. Next item, please . Item two,resolution approving and authorizing the execution of a purchase and Sale Agreement with Pradeep Gandhi and Gabriel Gonzalez together, buyer or buyers nominee, for the conveyance by the city and county of San Francisco, acting through the San Francisco Public Utilities commission sfpuc , to buyer of three parcels, consisting of approximately 15,341 square feet of Real Property located between helen drive and dexter place, millbrae, california for 2,340,000; adopting findings under the California Environmental quality act; adopting findings that the conveyance is consistent with the general plan, and the eight priority policies of planning code, section 101. 1; and authorizing the director of property and or the sfpucs general manager to execute documents, make certain modifications, and take certain actions in furtherance of this resoluti resolution. All right miss russell you are back . Thank you very much. So, these properties are three residential sized lots between helen drive and dexter place and they are each approximately, 5,000 per lot and zoned low density res denial and, we acquired it for a water enfra structure project but that project never happened. On december 13th, 2016, our commission declared the property surplus to our utility needs. Simply with the property, we worked with the City Real Estate to issue the Brokerage Services and City Real Estate selected culers due to the bid terms and the low Commission Rate of 2. 75 percent. The again, it is with the City Real Estate assistance, we complied with the Surplus Property and the statute for california and the property ordinance, we issued notices to all required entities and housing sponsors and received no letters of interest. This on november 6th, 201 shths our Planning Department found the sale of these lots consistent with the policies of the planning code. Simply, this determined that the sale of the property is not a project under sequa in june of last year, an mai appraiser valued the lots together at 2 million 40,000 on january, fifth, and another appraiser reviewed and confirmed the valuation, with he have two bidders, mr. Gandi and gon sal ez who submitted the highest bid at 2. 3 million for all three lots this is is over the appraised amount. Offered for weeks and we received they were the highest bidder bidders. This is a very clean sale, and after the payment of the commission and mr. Ganda and mr. Gon sal ez have already signed the purse and Sale Agreement. The funds from this sale will be used to offset our capitol projects. Do you have any questions . No. I will turn to the bla. Any comments . You . Yes, madam chair and members of the committee, on page 11 of our report, we show that the net proceeds to the sfpuc from the sale of the subject property are 2 million, 281,000 v,500, that is shown on table two on page eleven and again on this property, they pay both property tax and maintenance costs resulting in the savings of the puc of approximately, 2320, per year as a result of the property sale, again we recommend that we approve this resolution. Thank you very much with the recommendation. Colleagues, seeing that there is no other comments from you, lets go to Public Comment. Public comment on item two is open. Okay, pum public chent is closed. There a motion . Make a motion to pass this out of committee with a positive recommendation to the full board. Without objection. It passes thank you. Thank you very much, you are welcome. Item three, please . Item three,hearing on the controllers sixmonth budget status report for fy20162017; and requesting the Controllers Office, and the mayors Budget Office to report. Okay, colleagues i called for this hearing to provide the controller an opportunity to present our citys 6 month budget status report. A lot has happened in the last few months, and i am anxious to hear what is going on. I believe that it is important for this body and for our entire full board to have a full picture and understanding as to where we are as a city. Financially. And in particular, paying attention to our fiscal health. The report provides a picture of our Current Expenditure and revenue status as well as projections, for the publics edification, this information is he critical to this committees Decision Making process to help us make fiscally responsible choices. With that i would like to bring up controller mr. Ben rosenfield the floor is yours, thank you. Thank you, madam chair, and members of the committee, ben, city controller, as you indicated in your opening remarks, the 6 month status report is one of the quarterly status reports that we provide to the mayor and the board and the public regarding how the city is doing in the current fiscal year we are talking about 16, 17, budget and it has implications for next year that i will touch on briefly. Okay. At a high level in the general fund, we are projecting as of the 6 month mark just under a 300 Million Dollar ending balance in the current year. That is about a 72 million improvement from the assumptions contained in the five year financial forecast that our office, the mayors Budget Office and your legislative budget and analysts prepared in late november and published in early december. And about 54 million better than the assumptions that were contained in the mayors rebalancing plan which identified the additional revenues and so it is about 54 million better than suspected than in the current year. The citys typical budget practice has been to take ending balances in the current year and then use that good news to help close the budget deficits in the i couldnters ahead. And if that is the choice that the mayor and the board make, that 54 million will reduce the projected shortfall over the next two years from about 402 Million Dollars, which was our last forecast, to about 348 million. There is a lot of interesting news in the report this year. Generally speaking and i will touch on some of this, this improvement is really being driven by strength in our property related taxes. Property tax and transfer tax. And by net savings in our health and Human Service departments. Significantly, transfer tax returns in the current year are driving a stabilization reserve deputy in the current year and so our reserves are growing and we project to end the current year with the reserves that total about 8 percent of the general revenue, and so that is an improvement but still below the target which is ten percent. So i should say that i have copies of the report here to my right, which has a lot more detail and i will touch on here today and it is available on the website as well for the folks that are interested in it but at a high level this chart is showing you most of the Major General fund revenue and how they are performing verses the adopted budget and you can see unlike the last several years and really almost five years now, where we have seen pretty consistent improvement verses budget across all of our taxes here we have got some taxes performing better than budget and others performing worse, and like i indicated earlier, it is really the taxes that are driven by the Property Values and property activity here in the city are performing better than budget, generally speaking, those that are capturing consumption activity in the city, those are flattening and in some cases actually declining verses the prior year, and so we have the real strength in property tax and in particular, property transfer tax, and you can see on this chart in the current year verses the adopted budget, but we have weakness in sales tax, and that is driven by the failure of the sales tax that was assumed in the budget. But we also see weakness in a couple of other revenues, hotel tax, interestingly, rather than just plateauing in the current year is actually declining verses the prior year for the First Six Months and that is a trend that we are going to be watching parking taxes also lower than budget, and lower than the prior year and we have weakness in a couple of other major taxes as well. The net news here is good about 91 million better than budgeted. Thank you. To talk briefly about transfer tax we talked about before, they are easily the most volatile revenue in the general fund, it is the hardest for us to project, given that volatility. This is showing you a history back for about the last ten years. And you can see just how quickly it rises and falls. We lost 100 million in transfer tax in just an 18month period between 06, 07 in the trough of 08, 09, and realized 48 million in transfer tax, that entire year. And then we have seen a remarkable up swing and this is really driven by large volume transactions here in the city. Excuse me ben . We have got supervisor yee that has a question for you on the slide. Of course. I just have a question and in regards to the projection for the transfer tax. This is for the First Six Months. Correct. And i guess as you look into the future, are we taking into consideration the luxury transfer tax also . Yes. Go ahead. As you know and for members of the public the voters did approve an increase in the transfer tax for properties of more than 25 million. In value that went into effect on january first of this year. We have assumed an estimate that we consistent with what we have talked about before is 18 million in transfer tax, resulting from that in these projections. It certainly is something that we are going to be watching over the last six months of the year. The First Six Months of this year were tra order for transfer tax, in particular the month of december. In december alone, we generated about 72 Million Dollars in transfer tax in San Francisco. So that is more in a single month than we generated in the entire fiscal year of 08, 09, it was a High Movement some of that was likely transactions recording to beat the increase in the tax rate that was going into effect in january. But it is also just generally been an incredibly strong six months. We have assumed budget levels of transfer tax here for the remaining six months about you we will be watching this month to month. Okay, thank you. Thank you. You can continue. Sure. We had piqued at previous pique was at just under 320 million for transfer tax in 14, 15, and we saw the declines in 15, 16, when you can see on this chart. And the budget we had projected and the budget assumed a continual gradual decline in transfer tax revenues and instead we have had a reversal of that and as we talked about the First Six Months of the year were strong and we are ro jecting to be at a pique for San Francisco revenues. Like i said earlier, growth over the five year average ends up captured in the stabilization reserve, this was a mechanism adopted by the board of supervisors to smooth the volunteer tillty in this tax, and so the strong transfer tax is now fuelling a 70 million depu deposit to the reserve in the current year. In particular it is driving improvement and a lot of the base lines and set assigns that are for interest, but you can see on this slide just how those base lines and funds are improving verses budget. The mta sees an improvement for their share of these revenues. The library base lines are net growing, 2 million and we also see the improvement here in the Childrens Fund and the open space fund, both of which are driven as you know by property tax over all which is growing. Turning to department projections. And these are detailed in the report with obviously further explanation hthe net here is improvement. It is really being driven by improvement in the department of public health. Which is projected which has revenues out performing expectations in the budget. So their net position in this 6 month mark is now at 30 million of improvement verses the six month. As a reminder, that is on a two billion dollar, operating budget and while it is a significant number as a percentage of their whole, it is about at a percent and a half of improvement. But you can see that we also have savings in other departments and the Human Service agencies and others, that are detailed in the report. I should say that some of these savings and we have noted them with stars here. Are expenditures that were associated with the sales tax that failed. And so earlier we talked about weakness in sales tax, and some of these expenditures are now on reserve because of the failure of the sales tax to offset part of that loss. Consistent with the current year budget, the mayors rebalance lg plan and the release of reserve that this committee acted on earlier this year. We dont see any department over spending that will have to draw on the general reserve in the current year, but there are a number of cases where the departments are over spending the over time budget and they have savings in other parts of the budget that they will need the boards permission to reappropriate to cover. Which departments are those . We note them here. Had emergency management, the 911, department for the city, public health, police, fire, sheriff, and maybe the puc. Were all projecting at this moment will over spend their over time budgets in the current year. With savings offsetting that in other parts of their budget. But they will need your permission to reappropriate those savings within their department to cover these offerages. Are you able to estimate when they will come before the committee to ask for permission . It is typically we have done it in the spring in prior years. But it is entirely a choice for the committee actually. We push that forward if you like to see them sooner or have it later in the i couldnter if you like to see them later. We suggest the spring because at that time, the departments have a good handle on where they actually expect to end the year as well as what savings is available to offset it. Do the departments come altogether collectively or are they, you know, just would what they are see all of them on one day, as opposed the puc one week and so on and oforth, and we will work with the departments to bring them forward in that way. Thank you. Of course. As always, with our projections it is important that we stress that these are projections as the year goes along, they get tighter and tighter. But there are uncertainty that still exist that could effect these forecasts. Pace of Economic Activity is the largest. We are at this interesting moment where we are seeing some taxes continue to grow at strong pace and those that are really driven by the Property Value and others are plateauing and appear to be declinindeclining, hotel, utility user tax so these will continue to be and fluctuate as we know more about what is going on in San Francisco economy and what the out look is. While federal revenue risk likely sits in the budget years, there is some risk related to federal losses in the current year and we will continue to monitor that. At this point, we are assuming no losses in the current year as a result of actions in dc, which seems like the most likely out come. But we will continue to report back to you and the federal select committee of the bore as we know about the federal budget out look. And simply where there is a significant proposal that the governor has put forward in the january budget related to shifting part of the cost of the ihhs program from the state to local government. And if it were adopted as he is proposed it will cost our general fund about 40 million. That again, is likely an impact that hits the budget years, but it is one that we will be watching in the current year as well. And then lastly, of course, new spending commitments by the mayor or the board of supervisors have the potential to effect this out look. We touch on the host of other funds outside of the general fund in the report and just generally speaking and i will not go through them in detail here, you can see the improvement for the vast majority of the funds verses the assumptions in the budget whether the department of building inspection and we talked about the Childrens Fund and the convention and library and open space and the airport and they are doing better than assumed in the budget and the port and at least the hechy and clean water departments within our Public Utility Commission with have modest improvement. So again, just in closing, and in brief, this is about 54 million in improvement in the current year verses what we had previously projected. If that is applied to the shortfalls that we have talked about previously that will reduce them from 400 million to 350 million. We will be the next steps in our forecasting process in early march, our office the board of supervisors budget and legislative analyst and the mayors Budget Office will reforecast the budget years given this new information. So we will have revised shortfall estimates at that time. And we will come back to you with a budget status report on the current year. In may. Giving you information through three quarters of the fiscal year. I would be happy to answer any questions the committee has. I think that supervisor tang has a few questions. No. Supervisor yee . Is it safe to say that for the next six months on projection on property taxes that you might have had earlier, would actually go up . Driven by the fact that the transfer tax went up so significantly that there is so much of it being transferred that meaning that, you assess it at the current prices than the property taxes will go up also. I hate to say where they will go and i hate to talk about where they might, and i think that there may be upside risk here for property tax and property transfer taxes in particular the hotel tax moving from the assumed growth to actually seeing the declaims of 2 percent from the First Six Months of the year we have a number of events coming up that may dampn that further, and i think that we will probably see, and that will be my guess today and we will see the improvement in some and weakness in others. It will, and if we see the level of activity in the next six months that we saw in the First Six Months of the fiscal year. Important to note though, that given the relationship with the stabilization reserve, because we are now transfer tax in the current year has risen above the stabilization reserve deposit fle flesh hold as if the transfer tax improves, 75 percent of the growth will flow to that reserve, with only, 25 percent flowing to the general fund. Oh, okay. And that helps. Yeah. Thank you very much. Seeing no other comments from my colleagues, i want to invite up miss white house from the Mayors Office of budget to make a few comments. Welcome. Thank you, share cohen and members of the budget and finance committee, i would loaf to go to the overhead if that is okay. I just wanted to i am sorry. The. Before you begin, i want to make an announcement to everyone in the chamber today. Good morning, and welcome. Just want to bring to your attention that we have an overflow room set up with a television as well. In the south light court which is down stairs, the deputy sheriffs with point you in the direction just down the main staircase and to the left. So if you dont have a seat we need you to go down into the overflow room. Okay. Great. So thank you so white house, mayors budget director and the controller has already touched on this but i just wanted to make sure that i set a couple of comments for the consideration, as a controller mentioned, as of the five year financial release our city projected deficit for the up coming two years was around, 400 million, if we took the balance of the 54 million from the six month report, and we used that to the balance up coming two year budget that will bring down the projected deficit to 350 million, just for some perspective on that for me. This time last year, the six month report was around the same number was around, 58 million and at that time, the deficit went from 350, to 300 as a reminder, compared to a year ago, we are still about 50 million worse off and i think what is very different about that time, is that there is a lot more uncertainty from the federal government, and i think that is an important thing to keep in mind and then the six month report released to the up coming items and so i wanted to comment on the mayors rebalancing plan, and so he released a rebalancing plan on december 8 of 2016, and really i believe that the appropriation ordinance that will be coming up later, that does relate to the 6 month report, when i talked to supervisor avalos about this, he wanted to be sure that the they would be aible to weigh in and as the budget and finance committee does have this discussion today which i am happy to help and be helpful in any way, because it is a good policy decision, keep in mind, you know there were choices and trade offs that the mayor made and so when we are talking about doing additional new things, it is important to also talk about the choices that the mayor made and where might the board make a different choice. So for example, the rebalancing plan includes additional funding for immigration for the free city college, street trees as well as 20 million a year in ongoing Homeless Fund and this includes all existing rentals and Navigation Centers and really what we prioritize after speaking with the department and supervisors and Community Members whats really where is our existing service . That must continue and move forward because it is already being use and we didnt want to be in a situation where anyone was losing service that was a high priority for us when we did that process, and just where we are at on timing in the year. We are three months away from your committee and from us having to propose a balance budget to you and your committee reviewing that in a much larger context with everything altogether at once. I think right now when i think about making decisions on doing more or adding new money for new programs there are two reasons that i am concerned about that. One is, if we take some of this six month money, the this 54 million and we spend it and then it is not available to balance the budget, instead of 400 million, to 350, it will make the devastate stay higher and additionally it is a one time source of funding. Which makes the deficit worse, and because really what we are talking about is Ongoing Services today. And i am happy to help in any way that i can. Colleagues any questions . Just a quick question, last year when we went to around this time of the year, and i cant remember maybe you could remember . That did the board ask for supply mentals to support or in crease the support of certain programs during the latter half of the year. You know, i could not remember off the top of my head i am no the sure. In other words, did the board make decisions that would have increased the projected deficit at all last year. I cant remember it happening later in the year. I believe past practices it is usually some what earlier in the year but i am sorry i cant remember, but maybe the Controllers Office can check or let us know. Supervisor i dont have that information at my finger tips, but i can reresearch it. As we recall we have the full board approve a few supply mentals. We will do that homework in the next few minutes. Thank you. Thank you. I dont believe there is a bla report on this item. So what we will do is we will go to Public Comment. Ladies and gentlemen, if you would like to comment on item three, do so. At this time. All right, seeing no Public Comment, closed. I will make a motion to file this hearing. We will take that motion without objection. Thank you. Madam clerk, could you call item four and five together . And as at this point, i would like to recognize that we have a supervisor sandy fewer who is joining us for the next couple of items call four and five. Item four. Ordinance appropriating 6,945,965 of general reserve to the office of public defender, to create a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation in fys 20162017 and 20172018. And item number five,ordinance amending ordinance no. 14616 annual salary ordinance fys 20162017 and 20172018 to reflect the addition of 17 new positions 7. 08 ftes in fy20162017 and 17 ftes in fy20172018 at office of public defender for establishing a legal unit to defend immigrants from deportation. . Thank you, supervisor fewer is the sponsor of this item thank you, and i am happy to be here at the budget and finance committee today to discuss the items before you. We are calling items four and five together as items four is a supply mental appropriation that would fund immigrant Legal Defense through the San Francisco Public Defenders Office and item five, amendz the annual salary ordinance by adding those positions in the office of the public defender. Before hoping up for the presentations i wanted to say a few words. This is an important issue for me. When my youngest son roy went off to college in 2010, my daughter asked my husband and i if we would host an undocumented San Francisco student in our home. And so we hosted udera for four years while she was attending San Francisco state. And we learned first hand how the lack of legal papers effect the every days lives of our immigrant populations, when her grandfather was picked up by ice, we also learned the power of legal representation. As he kissed his wife goodbye and set off to the job that he worked for over 40 years, repairing body work on cars, ice surrounded him and took him away, claiming he was another person with an arrest warrant, he insisted that he was not that person, but ice refused to listen, because his family was able to secure legal representation for him, the van that was transporting him to the border was stopped and he was taken back to his family, which includes u. S. Born grandchildren, this is what legal representation can do, this Trump Association will not be so generous, for thousands of people they are in desperate need of legal representation to insure the due process rights. I would like to remind. Slow down. I would also like to remind my colleagues that the immigrant communities are being impacted include latino, asian, and pacific islander, white, arab and african residents. As a city, we have stood together to take important actions and response to this threat. Including 1. 5 Million Dollar supply mental for nonprofit immigration Legal Defense services and a lawsuit from the city challenging the constitutionality of the order to defend sanctionary city, but there is a group of people that are vulnerable and that is people who are detained, of the 1600 people in detention through San Francisco Immigration Court, the only Immigration Court in northern california, 60 percent, 67 percent of them do not have legal representation, and twothirds of them have no criminal record and many of them have u. S. Born children they are supporting. If we believe in civil rights for all, if we believe in human rights for all, then we must believe in due process for all. Because without due process, human and civil rights people will be violated. Earlier this month, i asked the budget and legislative Analyst Office to draft a report and other cities response to the Trump Administration aggressive actions towards immigrants. San francisco should not be the only. And we are not the only ones, san jose, and Santa Clara County have committed significant, Legal Defense funding as well as alamena county last week for both Community Organization and public defenders. Our efforts are linked to the efforts of other public and private entities who are stepping up to provide funding for critical and Legal Defense, in addition to training and education for immigrant communities. But San Francisco should continue to be united in leading this issue, and that is why i have taken over sponsor ship of this legislation originally introduced by supervisor campos in 2016. Based on the 6 month report, with he have a surplus in the current year budget due to a significant amount of salary savings and unexpected increase in the citys transfer tashgs while of course the majority of the money should be set aside to help with the budget shortfall, i believe that there is room including saving in the public defenders own budget to prioritize these critical issues, in light of the circumstances since the legislation was originally introduced, i will be accepting your recommendations made by the budget and legislative Analysts Office and suggesting making the following amendments, reduce the amount of supply menial to effect the numbers remove the fund and reduce the positions in the Public Defenders Office, reduce to 13 positions in fiscal year, 16, 17, which would include one head attorney, six attorneys four legal assistants and two Senior Process clerks. Reduce to 15 positions, and fiscal year, 17, 18, to one head attorney, eight attorneys and four legal assistants and two Senior Process clerks. Total amounts to 418,105 in physici fiscal year, 17, 18, to 2 million, 692 dollars in fiscal year, 17, 18, and two million, 441,797 dollars total for both years, with that i have asked several office to come and present today, i want to thank in order of presentations adrian from the office of civil engagement and fred from the budget and legislative Analyst Office, brian chu, from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development, davis from the Human Rights Commission, white house from the mayors Budget Office and jeff San Francisco public defender. First i would like to bring up pond for the first presentation, focused on analysis of the existing and pending federal executive orders regarding immigration. It is good to see you. Good to see you supervisors, good morning, chair cohein, and Committee Members and supervisors, the office of civil engagement and affairs and i am joined here by senior, policy analyst, francis sha and the researcher amal, and our Language Services staff, will also be interpreting part of the proceedings today for the residents who dont speak or understand accomplish so that they can fully participate. Oc, as part of the General Services agency and one of a growing number of immigrant Affairs Offices across the nation and we work with about, 100 offices nationally, and we are the only one that has policy grant make and direct service responsibilities. And our programs range from Community Ambassador safety to citizenship and civil engagement and deferred action assistance and day laborers and language and immigrant rights and education and out reach, we also over see the city wide compliance with the ordinance and staff the San Francisco immigrant Rights Commission. Our job is to provide information resources and tools to city departments and capacity support to cbo to help them better serve our vulnerable and communities in a cohesive way. And as you heard, earlier from supervisor fewer, the need is great. We were asked today to provide an overview of federo, immigration policy, and executive orders, and how these and anticipated actions may impact San Franciscos people. There are 2. 2 million born outside of the United States, includes nationalized citizen, and lawful residents or green card holders and refugee and legal nonimmigrants, including those who are on student work or other temporary visas. And persons residing in the country without authorization. So in San Francisco, there are about 71,000 with some sort of legal status, of these, 47,000 residents may be eligible now for citizenship. They are mostly from the asian region, one in every 7 is San Franciscos is an immigrant and that is nearly, 300,000 San Francisco residents. And there are about 44,000 individuals without documentation status in San Francisco. Mostly from mexico, Central America and asia. With mexico and china the Top Countries of birth. There are also many mixed status families or families whose members include different citizenship or immigration status. For example a family with u. S. Born citizen child. And an adult child who is a doca holder and may be undocumented parents interesting to note that of the undocumented population in San Francisco that is ages 16 and older, 67 percent are employed. And they are contributing to the local tax base, mostly in the arts, entertainment and recreation, and accommodation and Food Services industry. But because of their lack of status, 38 percent lack any kind of access to healthcare and insurance. So if we go to the next slide, this is dense and try to shrink it down to its essence in less than four weeks, the new administration has issued 12 signed executive orders and 12 president ial memos. It is kind of like a memo a week or a day with over, 200 leaked documents and i am sure everyone saw the president aep comments today about leakage in the administration. While issuing executive orders and memos in the first week of office are not really unusual, a lot of president s have done that, what makes these actions atypical are the uncertainty and vagueness around the directives. Very broad, many unclear leaving interpretation up to individuals such as Border Patrol agents so there are three immigration executive orders that have been signed with two additional unsigned ones and i will go over these quickly. But together these signal shift in federal immigration policy, one that does not distinguish between children, hard working immigrants and criminals. Reinstate scom which we know has been a failed program and expands Immigration Enforcement resources because you cant enforce unless you have the resources that support the additional activity and protecting the nation from terrorism entry into the United States by foreign nationals otherwise known as the muslim ban, bans visa holders from the seven previously named muslim countries from entering the u. S. , and thankfully this one is on hold. And will be settled in the courts. So that will take a little while. And then if we go to the unsigned executive orders, there are hundreds of documents floating around the internet right now, but these are the two that most people think well something will happen on, so the first one is entitled ending unconstitutional executive amnesty, wiping out president obama executive actions and all of his programs no new, and the permits will be valid until they expires, and rescinds the dopa program that was blocked by the court and never implemented and the second order, protecting tax payer resources for insuring our immigration laws by insuring our immigration laws promote accountability and responsibility. All of these have long titles to softn the blow if you look at what they are doing that is the ee sen shale thing. Prohibits entry of any immigrant likely to be eligible for any type of Public Benefits, they are not defined in the order and so that could mean anything, any kind of public benefit, and we have many here in San Francisco. And it allows for deportation of visa holders these are legal presence in the u. S. , and requires sponsors of the immigrants to reimburse the government for any benefits that have been used so there are currently about, 3520 residents from the seven muslim countries that were affected by the travel ban but this has been far more has had far more impact as we saw recently at sfo and airports across the country, whether you are a citizen, have a green card or visa, and you are undocumented this is affected everybody. There are 26,000 visa holders and talking about the impact on the workforce as well, the unsigned order could effect about 3500 to 5,000 daca eligible youth under the original, 2012, program in San Francisco, and of course, there is going to be the residual effect of the youth that would be aging into the program and the undocumented parents of u. S. Citizens or daco holders, because when you eliminate the possibility dopa you put them in the same boat, it is hard to say how much sf residents will be affected by deportation orders, since it is unclear at this point, we dont have that information. Beyond the headlines, it is important to note a few things. Cities and counties are preparing for the unknown, whatever that may be. And the response needs to be coordinated, and well thought out. We need to consider what is immediately actionable and the many priority to balance from Legal Defense to citizenship, language assistance and antidiscrimination, and all of it. There are many threats to healthcare, transportation, education, senior programs and Public Benefits and low income communities, we are all going to be affected by this. We have to think about what information we are collecting, especially on our vulnerable immigrants and how to protect their confidentiality by not collecting personally identifiable information such as religion and other nonrequired data. The may irs office has asked all department to Work Together so that as a city we are collaborating to provide resource and services and support and assurances to our vulnerable immigrants, while educating and reaching out to the host city family and protecting everyones safety safety, health and wellbeing. And so, you know, in summary, supervisors we are definitely a divided nation at this point, but we should be a united city. Thank you very much, be available to answer any questions you may have. Who is next . I would like to introduce fred from the budget and Analyst Office. I have directed the bla to develop a report on efforts regarding immigrant, Legal Defense from other municipalities from across the country, since the 16 election to aid on the discussion of this item. Thank you. Thank you, good morning, chair cohein, and members of the committee and supervisor fewer, fred from the budget Analyst Office. We prepared a report and released yesterday surveying a number of other cities and counties to determine what they are doing and how they are funding enhanced Legal Services and education out reach and other related services for immigrant populations. Excuse me, in their injuries jurisdiction i have put up a table and these are the jurisdictions that we surveyed and i will quickly one through them and give you an overview of what they are doing, what i should say at the outset though, is that we found, all of these jurisdictions had some services in place. Particularly the Legal Services and you will see that as i go through that and there is a greater emphasis on providing full representation in the Immigration Court and particularly for deportation proceedings and individuals who are in detention while they are going through their proceedings. And some of this is changing as we speak, or in process still as we speak, there are jurisdictions who are making decisions right now about the level of funding they are going to be providing. The county has appropriate ated a matching, 750,000 and for a total of 1. 5 million that will be available through the fiscal year, 18, and that money will go through it. And they will provide services for the immigration proceedings and an emphasis on deportation ask those in detention, the city of boston was one that was identified in our research when we contacted the city they actually have not yet appropriate ated money or identified the amount that will be appropriate ated. They are expanding however, their existing education and out Reach Services and an emphasis on providing additional legal clinics and services for deportation oriented cases. The city of chicago has in december, appropriate ated 1. 3 million in one time funding from a Property Tax Rebate Program that had surplus funds and they are funding two organizations. And direct legal representation for those in deportation proceedings. The city of los angeles and the county of los angeles are combining forces, with the city committing 2 million the county has appropriate ated 3 million, and they are combining with the private foundations two or three foundations including the california endo youment and the california, Community Foundation and the wine guard foundation, and the moment that they committed about 3. 8 million and their goal is 5 million and so they will have a total of 10 million, through the year 18, and that will be prohe vieded to Community Based organizations, through one of the foundations for Legal Services particularly for immigrants facing deportation, and additional education out reach legal clinic type of services. New york is not expanding right now, that is because they have been funding a series of programs for several years, starting in 2014, they implemented a program known as universal representation and for that program, they provide full legal representation for immigrants in deportation proceedings who are being detain detained, this year the money for that is about 6. 2 Million Dollars, and their. They have the full funding is about 30 million, and that covers a variety of Services Including what i just mentioned, the services for those in detention. The services are provided through three nonprofit Community Based organizations but those organizations are also part of the public defender structure in new york city. They contract out with a variety of organizations serving individual buoros and they have contacted with brooklyn, and bronx and the Legal Aid Society and so it is an enhancement of the service and operated like the Public Defender Office. San jose and santa clara, is the county is proposing 1. 5 million, and not yet appropriate ated by the board of supervisors and they are working with foundations to match that, for another 1. 5 million, so the total would be 3. 1 million. All combined to go through Community Based organizations and provide Representation Services for immigrants in danger of deportation, excluding the violent offenders. And Additional Community out Reach Services as well. And washington, d. C. For services for their immigrant population, that is the summary of the other injuries injures dishgzs and we have that in the report as awell, no every we show the current caseload in the local Immigration Court, and the number of deportation proceedings and the number of individuals detained in 2016, in San Francisco, are as of december, 2016, 12518 deportation cases added in fiscal year, 2016. 2229 detain ease during that same year, that is the summary of the report and be ha py to answer any questions. Thank you calling for this analysis, and one of the things that i wanted and i no he that you have the summary, but i wanted to be a little bit more clear about where the Legal Services are actually coming from for each of these counties, for example, going through your report i see that they have one full time and san jose has alamena has one full time immigration, and one part time. And san jose has one immigration Specialist Attorney as well. But it looks like the other counties have actually contracted out or partnering with nonprofit organizations cht everything that you have said is correct. The expansion however, in alamena county will be through the Public Defenders Office. And the others are using contract services, but they all have lets see, chicago cook county and bostons, they have Immigration Rights specialists also. There was a Supreme Court case in 2010, to compel the clients when nerp this danger of deportation about the possible implication and so we have found that every Public Defender Office has enhanced that type of service at least. How are they administered in they are through the city offices so they are offices of forget the title but it is Something Like immigrant affairs and they work to provide legal clinics and educational. Workshops. And. This local. This local office contracts with other nonprofit organizations is that what you are saying . It is a city office and they work with Community Based organizations yes. And do they have any plans to beef up the 500,000. Not that we have heard of. That was one time money. When was that allocated. So this is new. Most of this is post, november, 2016. Supervisor yee has a few questions. I am having a little difficulty sort of getting the details of all of this. Like in san jose, the legal representation that one would get is through the Public Defenders Office. The proposal would supervisor yee, the proposal for the new services would be through the Community Based organizations. However, their Public Defenders Office does have an immigration specialist also. But for these deportation proceedings, the public deep Fender Office does not provide representation in those cases. What do they provide then . They provide a standard Public Defender Services which are largely criminal cases. And these are civil proceedings and there is no mandate for public defenders to provide the service in the same way that there is a constitutional requirement for them to do so for the criminal cases. In the case of alamena, what are they and what kind of services are they actually providing . They have had the immigration specialist for a number of years who assists with other criminal cases and enhanced that staffing now with the part time attorney, and but the proposal and what they are going to do with the new funding is actually expand representation for more deportation cases. So that is not a service that they have been providing as extensively as they will be with this new funding. Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Supervisor fewer is there anyone else. Yes. Next i would like to bring up brian chu from the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development. In the supply mental pass by the board for Legal Defense through the Community Organizations and his department is overseeing those contracts and i thought that he could provide some context. Good morning, chair and supervisors, brian chu the director of Community Development and the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development here with julie, the Senior Development specialist. As you may be aware, they have had a long history of supporting Legal Services for immigrant community, since our department was created in 1974, we were the first organizations to fund the focuses on immigration, and since that time we have continued to support our Community Based organizations that provide Legal Defense for immigrants. Back in 2006, our department was honored to be selected to fund the creation of that San Francisco immigrant legal and education network. Which has survived to this day. And we also fund the San Francisco immigrant Legal Defense clabive which was founded about two years ago, to support the docket surge for the unaccompanied minors and their families coming over the boarders. We recently were selected as the department to receive 1. 2 million from the most recent, and i want to specifically talk about the services that were part of that subpoe that. And as you can see the funds and two organizations and on the left, the immigrant and the network and that organization is funded to provide an ongoing series of know your rights, workshops as well as some Case Management to individual and families, who may be affected by this recent surge in i would say that the recent change in immigrant policies at the National Immigrant level. The clabive is also 13 organization and they are they are funded to provide full scope legal representation, if you go to the next slide, you can see that our funding that we have received goes from today through june 30th. And we anticipate that the clabive will be able to serve, approximately, 190 client frz now to the end of june 30th. And he with will be put og 30 to 36 know your rights hearings as well as providing ongoing Case Management. This is in addition to the current funding that the San Francisco immigrant Legal Defense clabive currently receives and they have a base line of 1. 2 had million and with that their target is 400 clients per year. So if that continues they will be able to serve a total of approximately 800 clients or so with the 1. 6 that they may be receiving next year and they existing 1. 2. It is a combination of representation of individuals that are both nondetained and detained clients. Of those 13 organizations three organizations have the expertise to focus on the detained clients and the asian law caucus and the Legal Services for children the rest that are served are nondetained at this point and so that is a very brief summary of the services that are being funded through the most recent 1. 2 subpoe supply ment mri thank you, we appreciate your presentation. Supervisor fewer . Yes, i would like to introduce, davis from the Human Rights Commission in the suppliment all pass, and also received the funds and i wanted to ask if could she share the work being funded. Thank you. Thank you, supervisor fewer and two our other supervisors, davis, Human Rights Commission, i will just quickly go through. They were the funding was for know your rights and nondiscrimination and immigration resources and laws, Community Meeting and under served neighborhoods as well as ali communities and working with the School District, and then out reach materials on hate violence, discrimination, and immigration resources. We have since the process, we have had about 8 meetings already that does not include the planning meeting, some were from the students where they are going to be trained to be equity ambassadors and in that process, we did have one student who was undocumented that wanted to share with the students the impact and the anxiety and fear of being in school from daytoday, having those real experiences and those conversation and i am powering other people to go back and have those conversations in their classrooms. We also have done workshop with the churches and one thing that was brought up was the idea and the notion that often, people do not feel comfortable and we do need to be working with the clabive that is funded to do this work and allowing them to host those in a safe space. And the economicty advisory complitty is looking at the issues facing education and we are developing a tool kit that can be shared out and that will be the conversation along with those component and we working with the School District to also develop curriculum and that can be used and that will be based on the work that with he have down doing thus far, i dont know if there are additional questions, about you that is the quick snapshot of what is already been launched. And we are also working with the Police Department to be able to do some workshops with them around how to be welcoming. And how to be a little bit less threatening if they are engaging in community, and we are also working with the immigrant Rights Commission and adrian pond office to have the commissioners go and do the Community Conversations of so the small gro ups for gather feedback, and what their concerns or fears are. Thank you, and i appreciate your presentation. I dont know if you have any questions for us . All right, we are good. Thank you. All right. Supervisor fewer . Yes, next i would like to bring up white house, the budget director from the Mayors Office, in particular since we know that the community has been a part of the funding in these efforts in the bay area and across the country, i was hoping whether you could share whether the mayor office has been in conversation with the thil trop pick community. Thank you and i am going to hand it over to colin and he is the mayors director of partnerships and he will be better to speak on this point. Thank you. Glad to be with you this morning. I wanted to just share the strategies and the efforts that the mayor has made with the fill tlop pick community. We are in a good place of the leadership and elected officials and the Larger Community has stepped up to these particular issues. The mayor has held several meetings and some of them have been joint and some of them have been individual meetings with a broad breath of the community to do three main things. To make sure that we as a city are clear about what steps that we are taking and inform the philintropic community and the events and activities are taking place, director pond and chu covered the particulars that we have been talking about to make sure that they are aware. Third the mayor wanted to ask the philintropic to continue to support and step up even further and to invest greater in around the efforts and asking that one we continue to communicate with the Mayors Office in the city so that we can do that in partnership and that we can provide access to some of the nonprof nonprofit agencies. Folks ask how much, and it is difficult to estimate. We are a community that many of the local funders have been engaged in the issues for some time, and they have funded them around the title of immigration and service and they have also funded them through education, and health, and through all of these different areas. I could easily say that annually, there is over, 10 million of the kind of support from our local philintropic community that goes to these particular items in the discussions that the mayor has had, our emphasis has been that right now, there is an urgency that we have on the ground, nonprofit agencies that are providing these services and many are funding these now and we are glad to work with them and to identify them and make that connection. Lastly who is the Philadelphia Community that we are talking about . For us, the philintropic community entails institutional philintropic and state wide, and the corporate, and the corporate arms of the foundations and funding and individuals who have been interested in these issues who have been high wealth donor whose have shared that and lastly, very specifically, legal folks. Particularly the law firms. Are this he having any matches for the similar categories. Part of it is if the San Francisco foundation is funding alamena and the courts are not over there, but most of them are over here, what are they doing, with what we have to deal with in San Francisco. Sfechlt supervisor yee, i cant speak for each of the foundations including the San Francisco foundation but i do have the knowledge in some of their recent funding since january. They have released 3 million new of funding around these particular issues. 1. 5 million are going inside of San Francisco, and as we understand it, those dollars are to support the very things that i was just talking about, specifically nonexpansion of services to deliver a supports around know your writes workshops and pathways to citizenship, and Legal Defense, and all of those particular issues, but that is just one example and we have several other foundations in the area that have done the similar things and lastly in terms of alamena county, we believe, and i understand that the funding is exactly the same as i just described. Are these Family Foundations . Are they, and could you give a little bit more context or color around what are these foundations. Not a problem, it is a full range, many of the ones that we are familiar with here in San Francisco, traditional Family Foundations like the hos funds and like the zelerback fund and the Family Foundation and also, several of them are private and they could include things like, some of the company ones, and like the Gap Foundation or levi, and like the Stewart Foundation or locally we have here the foundations who have specifically focused on this area. So it is a broad breadth and then we have corporations that separate from their foundation, they have a corporate arm that gives and so we have invited them to come and be engaged in the information. How do they contribute, do they contribute to the general fund or what is the mechanism . There are several ways, often times the philintropic community sees an issue that they care about and they want to leverage that with regard to what the city is doing, and so they will approach us and say that we are interested in that particular issue. How might we help, and we give them guidance and connect them, but there are other times when there are initiatives that we as a city are launching and we invite tphilintropic to come an have a briefing. And one of the largest and ones that we are discussing lately is the issues around homelessness and so we share with them what the opportunities are and they identify if they are interested or not to do that. So he that is the broad way in which we have engaged with the philintropic community. Thank you very much. All right, thank you for your presentation. Thank you very much. Supervisor fewer who is next in yes. Finally i would like to interester duce, jeff the San Francisco public defender to share why these resources are important and what will be funded. Good morning. First of all i would like to applaud the mayor and the board of supervisors for your strong position. Reaffirming that San Francisco will remain a sanctionary city. I think that the mayors strongly stated position as well as the boards allocation recently is an important first step as is the City Attorney lawsuit defending against the executive order. However, there is a Huge Population here. There is a ga p that is not being covered by current services. And that are the folks who are most vulnerable really now. People who are detained, meaning that they are in jail in a facility being held and are facing deportation or removal. In the San Francisco courts alone and these courts are regional. So the San Francisco court covers an entire region, there are 1500 people at any given time who are detained. And make no mistake, the facilities that her held in look just like prisons they are dressed just like a state prisoner, would be dressed and they dont have access to their family and they dont have access to basic services and most importantly, they dont have access to a lawyer. No legal representation, 67 percent, that is 1005, people have for access to any legal representation, whatsoever. If we can go to the screen. We have a long history in both california and in this country of excluding people based on race and immigrants scapegoating. This is an ad, saying that the way to dispose of them and the way to arrest them. 200 years ago, again, the irish. We also see that immigration is used as a wedge to divide communities. Here is one where they make the argument that irish and africans are related and therefore, irish should be excluded. Here is another cartoon from that same era. Depicting a chinese and an italian. Here is part of the chinese exclusion act, the chinese must go. But who keeps them . Of course, in 1882, we have the chinese exclusion bill. Which excluded chinese immigrants. The chinese who built the rail roads and it is the same pattern that you see when the labor is needed they are brought in as a cheap form of labor, when the times is hard they are used as scape goats and you can see here where over three decades one million chinese and asians were detained. All without lawyers. This 1905, in San Francisco. No japs in our school, by the japanese and korea exclusion league, and it features the then mayor. This the immigration bill of 1924, which out right banned all araband japanese. And it limited the immigration enter of the United States of the jews and italians from the southern and Eastern Europe and africans. Of course, the executive order in 9066 my parents and grand parents, and is 25,000 other japanese americans were detained for four years without lawyers. No legal representation. And of course, the brocero program where hundreds of thousands of mexican workers were invited into the country to work and then when the times got tough, what happened . They were one million mexicans that were deported. And about half of them were citizens. And if you look at our immigrant population, had this is between, 2008 and it 2010, by country, and you can see that 28 from china and 9 percent are from the philippines and 43 percent from the other. And that other represents almost every country. And it is interesting just you know since we have announced that we are working on this, we have been contacted by immigrants from virtually every country, living in San Francisco. I was you know dutch people from haiti i had no idea and it was really an education for me. If you look at the undocumented we have 44,000, 11,000 from mexico, and i think that sometimes the assumption is that you know, everybody here undocumented is from mexico, that is not true, 10,000 from china, 3,000 from guatemala, and 3,000 from the philippines and 18,000 from other countries. If you look at the dem graphics, of immigrants over all, between 2008 and 2010, 1 percent are employed, and these are the folks. And our children, and they are part of our economy. And one out of every ten workers in california is undocumented. And you will see that it is inadvertise distinguishable from a prison. And you could be held there for years. And just to give you an idea of one of the cases that came across our office, and a woman by the name of anna was a passenger in a car. And the car was stopped, for a traffic violation, and she was picked up, and she doesnt have papers. And she was detained, and sent to deportation facility where she was, therefore, much before she was deported. She had a tenyearold daughter. No criminal history. Keep in mind that of the detained immigrants, as i said, 1500, there is 1005, and 67 percent of them are unrepresented by a lawyer, this is the National Statistic from syracuse university, and from 2008, and 2012, only 22 percent of noncitizens subject to the ice detainer had a criminal conviction, even looking at the 7,000 people that were detained from San Francisco and deported last year, twothirds did not have any criminal record, record history whatsoever. Believe me, we have plenty to do, and we again to meet with the nonprofit and we collaborated on the unaccompanied Children Initiative and was able to get more lawyers and more resource foz that effort. And they have done an amazing and the 500 children that they have represented and not one has been deported since the city. Instituted the program. And there is no way, that the nonprofits will be able to handle the detained dayses, and remember that these cases are the most complex and the most difficult, because the people that are in custody, and the most vulnerable population therecy backlog of the Immigration Court alone. Now there is only, 27 percent. Question where did you get that figure from . 36,000. If you could site your source. There is a report that i have that i can provide that was done by the Public Policy institute but those are nondetained cases. So, 27 percent of the nondetained immigrants have or do not have lawyers, and so the percentage of immigrants. Now, these numbers that you are coining is it specific to San Francisco county. . Eyes, this is the San Francisco court, all right . Yeah, so. And it became clearer that the only way that we can provide representation for the volume of folks is to a Public Defenders Office and that is why we look to new york and we met with the defenders in new york and we met with the policy makers there, and it was shown to us, that the system there works. And we figured out what it would take in order to fund that, and so the proposal that we would put forth is to hire, ten public defenders each of whom will handle 40 and 60 case and now because we will staff the courtroom and so rather than having 12 48 cases for one attorney. A year. Just go through that because i need to make a note of that. Our proposal is that we will hire, 10 public defenders each of whom will handle 40 to six cases a year. So i thought that the original request was for 17, you have changed it. There are seven support staff. And ten attorneys. So ten, attorneys, that would hire that would handle 40 to 60 cases a year. Yes. Thank you. And before i stop, i just wanted to mention one other thing is that we have been working with a nonprofits, and you know, we are very excited about potentially being able to work with them, but there will still be gaps, even if you fund this and that is where the foundations can come in, i have been working with from the foundation and she has put together meetings that the mayors, and we will put together the pro bono and there is, i think, you know, a need for a Public Private foundation, partnership. And i have been very mindful about that. Because im sure, that you are too. This is now, it is not in october, and because, we just heard yesterday, that there are children, and parents under dopa and doca who are picked up in raids around this country, and even in this district. And because the court is in San Francisco. Not only trying to do your job. And to show your heart but i do have the difficult questions. So for example, in the budget Analyst Report, it sites that in fiscal year, 2015, through 16, there were 229 detain ees in the Immigration Court and as we all know here it does not just contain those who are only i want to make sure that we have the numbers straight here in terms of the number of detain ees. So basically you are saying that 1500 of the 2209 are San Francisco residents. Yeah, and the most recent report i have here, is called the california due process crisis, and it is a june 2016, report which is the most recent one, by the california coalition, for the universal representation, and they have all the numbers here you know, from the Immigration Court and i believe that the number, 1500 also, appears in mr. Roses well researched report. And so, i believe that that is the correct number and we did verify that with the court. And that that number is the most accurate number. And i have gone through the case myself and certainly, observed it i know that it is very come mri indicate and that is why your office wants to be aible to consult with some of the other, organizations and the nonprofit organizations to assist with what is very complicated matters and so in terms of those who are actually detained on citizens, and immigration, court. And i would imagine, that the staffing level is incredibly different, and in terms of how you calculated, the number of attorneys that you need, and i am just not sure that we would get to that same number here, because you might have to go to court, the nonprofit organizations handled that they can handle between, 20 and 40 cases and the reason why our case will be higher is because we would staff each of the courts with an attorney. And that attorney will handle all of the cases on that day and, it is the same reason why it is efficient to have the public defender to handle the criminal cases. And so that attorney would be there and handle all of the cases that were on a particular date, and they would be assigned you know, to the various court rooms and because the Immigration Courts are set up in that fashion, it makes sense and we have also talked to the immigration judge the chief judge here in San Francisco. Now we have one immigration specialist who has worked in our office since three years ago, there was the pediat decision which required public defenders to advise clients as to the immigration consequences and the city as well as the office would be liable for the failure to do so. That attorney also in addition tho advising all of the attorneys in our office as to immigration consequences. And making sure that if a person decides to plead guilty or is convicted after a trial that they dont face deportation unless they have to, that person also handles a limit number of immigration cases in the detention court. And handles 12 cases. And if we had attorneys who are dedicated to doing detention defense only, we again, estimate that they will be able to do between the cases. It is not because the nonprofit is not working as hard. They are. It is just that they have more resources in addition to the support staff and also i have over, 250 volunteers who work in our office, law students and lawyers, and every year, volunteer their service and so we would also start at immigration clinic, and utilize law students to do some of the work. Thank you, and dont confuse my questions to not think that this is important work i want to make sure that the members of the public really understand that and we want to make sure that the funding is going to where the appropriate needs are and so forth, and so again, these are just trying to get more clarity around the situation. But in terms of other cities or counties, i am wondering has there been any conversation about how those other neighboring jurisdictions where they have residents, who have nondetained noncitizens going through our sf Immigration Court whether they can also contribute to some of what we are trying to achieve here. Because i think that we should all be a partner here. No matter
vimarsana.com © 2020. All Rights Reserved.