Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the October 1st, 2025 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee.

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

I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Matt Dorsey.

Our clerk is Brent Haliba.

I would like to thank Kalina Mendoza from SFGov TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, do you have any announcement?

Thank you, Madam Chair, just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

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

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

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

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

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

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

SFGO V.org.

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

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

Postal Service to our office in City Hall at 1 Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlick Place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, Madam Chair, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of October 7th, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And before we call item number one, we will need to excuse Supervisor Joe and Guardio.

And I would like to move to excuse the supervisor and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to excuse uh Supervisor and Guardio from today's meeting.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes with member and guardio excused.

The motion passes.

And um, as always, we will have budget and legislative analysts reports uh for items on our agenda.

And what we would do is to have department uh presentation first, followed by the budget and legislative analyst.

Then we will take questions and from this com from this committee, and then we will go to public comment.

And with that, Mr.

Clark, please call item number one.

Item number one is a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend an in-kind grant from the dog patch and northwest Petrero Hill Green Benefit District valued at approximately 580,000 for the design and construction of the 22nd Street Trail Steps, and to authorize the general manager of RPD to enter into modifications to the grant agreement that does not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the contract or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Brecken Park here.

My name is Tamar Barlev, and I'm with the recreation and parks department partnerships division.

And I'm here with our partners, Dog Patch and Northwest Petro Hill GBD and members of the Friends of Patrero Hill Rec Center to present to you item one on today's agenda, a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept an in-kind grant from Dog Patch and Northwest Petrao Hill GBD, valued at approximately 580,000 for the design and construction of the 22nd Street Trail steps.

To provide a little local context, on the left is a view of Petrao Hill bounded by 280, 101, Caesar Chavez, and 16th Streets.

At the top of Petrao Hill, which is squarely in District 10, on the eastern side is a 10-acre Patrero Hill Rec Center, which houses recreation center and gymnasium, athletic courts and fields, a community garden, trails, and incredible vistas.

Down the hill to the east of this uh is the dog patch neighborhood, as well as Show Place Square to the north, along with Soma.

The only way to access the uh Petro Hill Rec Center and the open space surrounding it, from the northeast side of Petrello Hill Rec Center, and Dog Patch is an informal dirt trail located mostly on unaccepted public right of way, considered part of 22nd Street, adjacent to the Patrero Hill Rec Center between Connecticut and Missouri Streets.

This steep, at times 26% slope, dirt and rock informal trail is worn into the hillside, is located immediately north of Petrero Hill Rec Center open space, and is adjacent to the Petrero Hill Annex Public Housing Complex.

For a decade, members of the Petrero Hill and Dog Patch communities have been advocating for a safer way to traverse this area.

In 2017, a neighborhood task force organized by UCSF identified five projects that would cushion the impact of the university's expansion into Dog Patch neighborhood.

A staircase built along the same stretch of 22nd Street was one of those five projects.

As a result, UCSF pledged $500,000, which is granted to the Dog Patch and Northwest Patra Northwest Petrail GBD on behalf of Friends of Petrail Hill Rec Center to design and build these steps.

The design approach for these trail steps is to replicate the box steps, a successful trail step design that RPD implements in other parks and open spaces throughout San Francisco.

The majority of the trail steps installed at Petrail Hill Rec Center will be constructed on DPW unaccepted right-of-way adjacent to RPD property, which DPW code-states RPD is responsible for improving and maintaining.

For this reason, RPD staff has partnered with the community to steer this project forward, and if this resolution is approved by the Board of Supervisors, the recreation and park department's operations and maintenance staff has agreed to maintain these steps once they are constructed.

Here is the budget for this project, entirely funded with funding from UCSF and other partners and supporters.

That is $580,000 total, including $60,000 for design and project management of the staircase, $5,400 allocated for permit fees, 425,500 for construction.

There's also an administrative fee to cover GBD services, as well as 10% contingency to ensure the project is fully funded.

In the fall of 2025, requisite permits will be obtained.

The GBD will enter into a contract with the contractor and construction will commence.

During the winter of 25-26, construction will continue, and then in the spring of 2026, it is anticipated that the project will reach both substantial and final completion.

RPD and Dog Patch GBD are applying for the required permits for the Department of the Department of Public Works, and if approved, the GBD will grant RPD the design of the steps and the steps themselves once they are constructed.

UCSF is providing the majority of the funding, as I mentioned before, to cover the cost of design and construction of the staircase, with additional support from a grant from the mayor's office of housing and community development, a donation from local community members Keith Goldstein and Donna Warrington.

Power Station and Kannada LA have also pledged funds to support the project.

The Trail Steps Project is supported by District 10 Supervisor Shimon Walton, as well as a diverse group of community and neighborhood business organizations, including UCSF, Patrero Boosters, Dog Patch Neighborhood Association, Friends of Jackson Park, Patrero Hill Dog Patch Merchants Association, Prefund, and the Dog Patch Business Association.

Thank you, and I'm glad I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you.

Uh I don't have any name on the roster, and I don't have additional questions.

Thank you so much for your work on this.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

So we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number one.

I'll go ahead and line up uh by those curtains and I we'll start our time with the first speaker.

Good morning.

Good morning, uh Chairwoman Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, it's good to see you again.

Uh thank you for being here today and for considering the resolution for RPD to accept this in-kind donation for the 22nd Street Pathway Steps.

I'm Donovan Lacey, I'm the acting executive director of the dog patch and Northwest Petrao Hill Green Benefit District.

We'll call it GBD.

So it's a mouthful.

Um the GBD has been a long time supporter of these 22nd Street stairs.

I think it's we're looking at probably a decade at this point.

Um and we are very proud to be the fiscal sponsor here.

We stepped in when we needed to step in, and we are excited to be part of this project.

Um I've personally used those existing dirt and rock stairs um to access Wreck and Park uh community garden, of which I'm a member, to take my daughter to the Wreck and Park fields for soccer practice to attend events at the Petrao Hill neighborhood house, or just to visit my friends up the hill.

I I have the scars to prove it.

Uh those stairs are dangerous and and it they're tough.

Um, these 22nd, the proposed stairs are going to replace what is now this steep, rugged, dangerous dirt and rock path between Missouri and Connecticut with something that's well create well crafted, accessible, and stay and safe.

It's going to create safe and easy access to those community uh amenities uh in dog patch and potero hill.

Things like as I said, the Petro Hill Rec Center for with the the ball fields, the playgrounds, the basketball courts, all of which dog patch does not have.

So this is a great benefit for dog patch.

It's going to provide easy access to the 22nd Street Caltrain and Muni Transportation Hub just down the hill.

Um and obviously it's going to provide access to the dog patch commercial corridor and the newly reopened waterfront and Pier 70.

Um UCSF and as you said, UCSF and its community sponsors are have covered the cost entirely of uh of the design and construction, partnering with the friends of the Petrero Hill Rec Center and the Green Benefit District.

So I urge you to support our community and improve this resolution to accept the in-kind donation.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Chair Chan, Supervisor Dorsey, J.R.

Epler, President of the Potero Goosters Neighborhood Association.

It is extraordinarily exciting to be here today because what we have in front of you is a nearly perfect project.

It starts off with the public need, and the public have voted with their feet on this, going up and down that hill for years from Patero Hill to access the Cal Train Station, from Dog Patch to access the Petro Hill Rec Center and the Petro Hill Neighborhood House.

It's clearly something that is necessary because the scars are worn into the hillside to prove it.

The cities also recognize this, going all the way back to the 2014 planning department green connectors plan to the development plans along the waterfront and the south slope of Potero Hill that recognize the need for pedestrian connection up to the amenities at the top of the hill and the need for people to get down from the hill to the cow train station and to the future amenities that will be along the central waterfront.

The neighborhoods around the area have stewarded this project for more than a decade.

It started off as an unfunded idea.

It received funding from community partners, including UCSF, the Patrero Power Station.

It raised funds from the neighborhood at large in order to fill the funding gap.

And those neighbors have been flexible in their idea of what this stairway could look like, coming up with the plan that we have today.

We have a great fiscal sponsor for this plan.

The community has managed to avoid uh any major complications from the fall of the Parks Alliance and has moved to a fiscal sponsor in the Green Benefit District with a decade-long track record of delivering green open space connected projects in the area.

And finally, Supervisor Walton, he understood this immediately when I took him out there to look at it.

He worked his way down the path.

My shoes couldn't get there.

He he came back up.

He's like, Okay, I get that.

Let me know how I can support.

And that's why you have this before you here today.

So thank you very much for your time, and please, please, please approve this nearly perfect project for the Potero Hill and Dog Patch communities.

Thank you.

And thank you, J.R.

Appler.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

Um Chairwoman Chan, Supervisor Dorsey.

Um my name is Clement.

I live very, very close to um the Petro Hill Rec Center.

In fact, we couldn't be any closer.

We're really right below the only thing separating us from the Rec Center is the path that we're talking about, the rocky uh steep path to access the recenter.

And this is really unfortunately the main reason why we haven't been taking advantage of this Rec Center.

It's full of great amenities.

There are tennis courts.

My wife and I, we love playing tennis together.

There are a couple of playgrounds.

We have a two-year-old daughter, she loves to uh go on the swings, and this is the really the only uh swing that there is in the neighborhood, and yet um we've again barely um uh gone to the rec center because it's so hard to access.

Um the the only other way for us to get there would be to um go up the hill and and do a little detour um of uh you know a couple of blocks, which would be a whole other uh ordeal taking those troller out and going up the hill with that and so on and so forth.

So um I was very excited to uh learn about this project and uh as soon as I did, I got involved with the uh uh friends of the Patrol Hill Rec Center, which is uh an amazing group working on making this happen.

Um so for us, um, we would be very excited to see those stairs built.

Um that would make the difference between using the Rec Center and currently unfortunately not using it.

Um so thank you for considering it, and I hope that you will uh vote in favor.

Thank you, and thank you for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hello, Supervisor Chan and Supervisor Dorsey.

I'm Jennifer Serwer, and I'm one of the friends of Petro Hill Rec Center.

I've been working on this project since 2016, so we're almost 10 years in.

Um, I use the rec center all the time, and I have a dog and a kid, and so I use it frequently.

And one of the things that's really fun to do is to walk down to dog patch with your dog and use the dog areas and dog patch and then come back up, which is not as easy as it could be without the stair.

Um, so it's a great project.

So please just make our dream a reality today and um approve this wonderful project.

Thank you.

And thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Hello, Chairwoman Chen, Supervisor Dorsey.

Thanks for your time today and your attention to this project.

My name's Brena Lord.

I'm a parent that lives in the dog patch.

I have two students that um went through SFUSD.

One is now an eighth grade at Aptos, but was at Star King, and when he started kindergarten, we were telling him, Oh, the stairs are coming.

So we've been looking forward to it for a long time.

And uh we do take that path daily.

It is rocky.

When the grandparents come to visit, we have to take the long way around, and it adds a good 20 minutes to the route to get up to the school.

So instead of, you know, 15 minutes, 35 minutes in the morning, it makes a big difference.

Um so we look forward to your hope for your approval of this project.

So we can finally get it done.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Brenda Lord.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, um, Supervisor Chan, Supervisor Dorsey.

My name's James Harvey.

I'm one of the abutters on 22nd Street.

Um, my kids walk up that path every day to school, uh, except when it's too muddy, and then they have to take the long way around and leave about 20 minutes earlier, like Brenda said.

Um, and uh, just like to say everybody on my street uh supports the project, and we're very enthusiastic about it.

So thank you for considering it.

And thank you much for your comments.

Next speaker.

Supervisors, thanks for your patience uh with this 10 years of pent-up desire and hope here.

Um I I'm gonna take a bigger picture.

So it between 2016 and 2019, back in the boom, 2,500 units of housing were added in Dog Patch.

Trick question: how many children's play areas, city tennis or basketball or pickleball courts, were there before the expansion, and how many are there now?

The answer to both questions is zero.

There are no city facilities down in Dog Patch to handle the thousands of new people that came in.

The T line gets extended to Chinatown.

Lots of fanfare, right?

You can go from Bayview to north of market.

How many pedestrian improvements were made to make it easier for the residents of Petrero Hill to get to the Blessed T-line or to one of only two Caltrain stations in the entire city of San Francisco?

Also zero.

The city's largest contiguous subsidized housing project anywhere in the city is on the southern and eastern slopes of telegraph of Petrero Hill.

How many efforts have been made to connect that facility to the amenities that surround it?

So far, zero.

So this precious little simple wood stair that these neighbors have tried for 10 years to build is really something that the city ought to be doing, in my estimation.

And you think about all of the wonderful stairway walks and alley walks, all the crosstown walks.

Most of them rely on infrastructure that's 75 to 100 years old.

Between the world wars, we built streets and tunnels and bridges and stairways and alleys, and we haven't done a lot of that since.

And while we have big grandiose projects, especially along the waterfront, your districts and this district could benefit by some simple parks and pedestrian passageways to encourage the community and the connectivity that makes neighborhoods so special.

Speaker's time has expired.

Thank you.

And with that, Madam Chair, with no further speakers, that completes our queue.

Thank you.

Seeing no more public comments, public comments now closed.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

And I just want to express my appreciation to everybody for their persistence and hard work on this.

I suppose as a member of the budget committee, it's especially appropriate to thank everybody for their those who contributed to the funding of this.

And it occurs to me the next time I see Keith Goldstein at the gym, I'm gonna try to convince him to move to move to South of the Market because uh I really appreciate his leadership.

Um I'm happy to support this, and I just wanted to express my gratitude to everybody.

Thank you.

And seeing that, um, what is your will, Supervisor?

Madam Chair, I would like to uh move this to the full board with our positive recommendation.

And roll call, please.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey that we forward this resolution to the full board, the positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, aye.

Dorsey, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have two eyes.

Would member Guardio excused?

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Homelessness and supportive housing to enter into a grant agreement amendment effective July 1st, 2025, between the city and county acting by and through HSH and the San Francisco Health Plan to continue to provide enhanced on-site services and permanent supportive housing and data integration under the housing and homelessness incentive program, amending the existing term of the grant agreement through December 31st, 2025, with automatic one-year term renewals, effective January 1st of each year until the grant agreement is terminated by either party, increasing the grant amount by approximately 2.8 million for a total not to exceed amount of approximately six million and authorizing HSH to enter into any amendments or other modifications to the amendment that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities or materially decrease the benefits to the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreement.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

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

Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Vice Chair Dorsey and Brent.

I hope one day we'll give you a short title on one of these pieces of legislation.

My name is Dylan Schneider.

I'm the manager of legislative affairs with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

Happy to be here before you today with this grant agreement amendment with the San Francisco Health Plan for our second round of housing and homelessness incentive program or HHIP state grant funds.

So the resolution before you authorizes HSH to retroactively approve the first amendment to the grant agreement between HSH and the San Francisco Health Plan that will continue enhanced care services and permanent supportive housing and associated data integration.

It will extend the term of the agreement through December 31st, 2025, and include automatic one year extensions beginning January 1st.

It will increase the total not to exceed amount by approximately 2.8 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately six million.

And this proposed amendment was reviewed and approved by the homelessness oversight commission in August of this year.

Just a brief overview of the budget.

The slide in front of you reflects uh the breakdown of funding from both rounds of HIPAA funding.

We had 3.2 million in round one that funded enhanced care in permanent supportive housing, capital projects at 14 permanent supportive housing sites, and that associated data integration.

And with the 2.8 million in round two funding that is being added under the proposed amendment, it will continue enhanced care in permanent supportive housing and data integration.

So we wanted to just take a brief moment to share impacts and an update on the enhanced care program at the Kelly Collin Community Permanent Supportive Housing Site.

And this is a really exciting and successful pilot that we have been partnering with Cardea Health over the last few years to run.

This program also leverages the state's home and community-based alternative waivers or the HCBA waivers through MediCal.

And Supervisor Dorsey, we're very happy that you were able to visit the program on site last year with us.

So this enhanced care services program supports 159 tenants at the Kellen Collin community and provides skilled nursing seven days a week, medical case management five days a week, and 24 hour caregiving schedule.

And all residents receiving these enhanced cares are considered medically fragile and higher acuity, and so having these on-site services, being able to keep them stably housed and healthy has um had some really great impacts.

And so just a few of those over the last year, we saw a 15% decrease in ER visits, 23% decrease in inpatient admissions or hospitalizations, and a 45% decrease in the number of days spokesfent hospitalized.

So again, really excited to be able to continue this program with this additional state funding.

And with that, happy to take any questions.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So I think this, if I understand it correctly, this is sort of what we had talked about as sort of sort of a PSH plus kind of enhanced care model.

I will say I'm happy to support this.

One thing that I have observed, and I know that we have had these conversations privately, but I think too often we ask permanent supportive housing to solve problems that it wasn't intended to solve.

And I think this is an expenditure of funding that is enhanced care to enable our part our well, our departments and our nonprofit partners to succeed to set them up for success.

So I think this is money well spent, and I'm happy to support this.

Thank you.

Great, thank you.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

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

If you have any members of the Public Overture Justice Committee, Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And um I would like to just move this item to full board with recommendation and the roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward this resolution to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes with Mayor Angardo excused.

Thank you.

And the motion passes.

Um, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution authorizing the Department of Public Health to submit the applications to the California Department of Health Care Services under the bond Behavioral health Continuum Infrastructure Program, round Two.

Unmet needs program pursuant to the Behavioral Health Infrastructure Bond Act of 2024 for grants with terms not to exceed 10 years with anticipated revenue to the city in excess of 25 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Department of Public Health here.

Morning, supervisors.

Kelly Kirkpatrick, Director of New Beds and Facilities at SFDPH.

We have a brief presentation for you.

Wonderful.

We are here seeking your authorization to apply for what we call bond B chip grants.

Under proposition one passed by voters, the state had 6.4 billion dollars of infrastructure bonds available, 4.4 billion dedicated to behavioral health projects in particular.

We applied for projects under round one, which was $3.3 billion, and now round two is available, and that is for $800 million.

I will note it's about a quarter of the size of available funding, and it's really focused on unmet needs.

So with that, I'll move on to a reminder of kind of the eligibility for these one-time state grants.

Next slide, please.

It is very limited and has specific eligibility requirements for again one-time state capital funds.

We need to expand or create new behavioral health infrastructure.

We can't just improve existing facilities.

We have to increase the capacity number of people served with any capital infrastructure project.

In general, they must provide Medi-Cal billable services as well.

So, for example, our board and cares or residential care facilities are not eligible.

And then you must demonstrate project readiness, which has a whole host of site control, ongoing funding identified, and of course a board authorizing resolution, which is why we're here before you today.

Again, this is no new operating funding, it is one-time capital funds.

Next slide, please.

Just want to share that we were successful in round one.

We received nearly 28 million dollars for two projects.

I want to appreciate the board's support of that prior grant application, and we look forward to our round two applications.

So next slide, please.

Under round two, we do plan to request 26 million dollars in capital funds for two projects.

Um the first is 14 million dollars for adult residential substance use disorder treatment beds on Treasure Island.

We did apply in round one for these projects as well.

Um it would be adding additional beds at our planned um residential step-down project out on the island.

Um we would maintain the same residential step-down capacity, but also be able to expand treatment to make it more of a continuum in the building.

We are seeking 12 million dollars for a 24-7 center available for law enforcement for the upcoming health recovery and connection center, which um great appreciation to uh Supervisor Dorsey and the board for approving the purchase of 1660 mission yesterday.

Um, and so this would be seeking additional funding to build out this center on the first floor.

Um, in addition, we plan to reapply.

We did in the previous round for um with UCSF Health.

I want to thank our UCSF partners for being here.

Thank you, Dan.

Um, we are planning to reapply for our joint project, which would include 56 um additional lock subacute treatment beds and six acute psych beds.

Um we know that there is high need in the city.

Um this is an expensive project, but we need the state to know that we have you know significant needs, and this is also kind of our um shared um statement of that priority as well.

Next steps um bond B chip round two applications are due October 28th.

Um the wards are expected to be announced by the state in spring of 2026.

Again, and funding is not guaranteed.

Um, should we be awarded any funds?

We will return for appropriation authority and the grant agreements to you all, which we will be doing in the fall or winter for our bond B chip round one applications, which we are awarded.

So with that, I'm done with my presentation and happy to answer any questions that you might have.

Vice Chair Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chen.

You mentioned that the Prop One eligibility is premised on new capacity.

And I wanted to ask about 33 through 7th Street because that used to be a facility that it's going to be again.

Is it new capacity because it's ours or new capacity because it closed in 2021?

So it is not currently online.

And so when we do open it, it will be new capacity to our system.

Okay.

We have talked about this.

I'm excited about this investment.

I know I traded calls with Father George from St.

Michael's next door to see if he's okay with it.

He I know that there's there was a little bit of neighborhood pushback about this and St.

Michael's Church next door knows Joe Ruffin well.

They used to host 12 step meetings for the folks there, and I know they're happy with it.

So I appreciate your efforts to um to reach out, and I appreciate everything you're doing on Prop One funding.

Um so I'm happy I'm happy to support this.

So happy I'd like to be added as a co-sponsor, actually.

Fantastic.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you.

Help me understand a little bit about um, and maybe I'm I'm inaccurate, so please uh help me if I either you recall correctly or understood it correctly.

The first round when it came out, we apply roughly almost like a hundred or a little bit, hundred and forty million.

You've got in, right?

And then we receive twenty-six million, which is great, great news.

And then so now we're applying again, but this time around we're uh applying for 26 million.

Kind of help me understand.

Like, is it because less money that's actually available to us for the round two, or or what is that we we have now reevaluate um like our needs and we're we know very specific, so we're going for very specific um ask.

It's a great question and great memory.

Yes, we did apply for about a hundred and forty million.

I think it's a multitude of things.

There's a quarter of the money available at the state level, so there's just less money on the table.

Um, additionally, it's a pretty high bar to meet all of those requirements, expand treatment, um, uh site control, Medi-Cal eligible program.

So we just have fewer projects that kind of meet that um kind of bar.

And I will note with a joint application with UCSF, we will be applying potentially depending on who's the co lead applicant to up to 100 million dollars with that 74 plus the 26.

So we are making our needs known to the state, although we recognize that there's a lot less funding available this this round.

And one thing I I also want to note is that community partners are also eligible to apply for bond B chip and and prior rounds Friendship House won a significant um allocation um for their um project and the mission.

Um, and so we do entertain kind of requests from community partners for their applications, and we're we've receiving those now.

Um so it's not just the city who could apply, but other entities.

We do need to sponsor their letter of support um and have awareness, but they would be the lead applicants.

That's good to know.

I mean, I think that's totally fine.

I am just trying to understand and learn more about the strategy.

Um, that makes a lot of sense.

I think that you know it was very ambitious of what we wanted to do, but I also think that that's okay.

Like I think that we reevaluate our system, what is necessary, um, and getting the 26 out of what we aim for, um, still very impressive, and then to consistently just go back to the different rounds.

And I do agree with you that I do appreciate UCSF partnership because it is important that we can't do it all as an entire system.

Um we do need those partnerships, and it's really also good to hear that Friendship House um have received amount that to do their work because together we're all serving San Franciscans and in San Francisco, so that that's really good news.

Thank you so much for walking me through.

That's really helpful.

Um, and I don't see any uh we don't have any other questions.

Let's go to pop a comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding item number three, and that was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers, seeing no public commons.

Public comment is now closed.

Um, I would like to move the item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes.

With the member of Gardio excused.

The motion passes.

Um that um Mr.

Clark, please call item number four.

Yes, item number four is a resolution retroactively authorizing the office of the district attorney to accept and expand the grant in the amount of approximately 233,000 from the California Department of Industrial Relations.

For the workers' rights enforcement grant program to implement a wage theft enforcement program for the period of August 1st, 2025 through July 31st, 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have the district attorney's office here.

Yes.

Good morning, uh, Madam Chair, good morning, uh Supervisor Dorsey.

Ernst Halpern from the San Francisco District Attorney's Office.

I'm the worker rights prosecutor in the office.

Um, this is a grant uh that is the second grant of two one-year grants, pursuant to legislation that granted the Department of Industrial Relations, I think 19 million dollars uh to support state uh local level and county level efforts to combat wage theft.

Uh it's we applied last year, got two-thirds of a full-time equivalent investigator support from the department.

This year it's enough for one full-time uh equivalent investigator plus the mandatory audit costs.

If you have any questions, I'm more than happy to answer them.

Um, so is this uh for this uh specifically just for wage theft?

To combat wage theft, so that is that occurs uh among low-income populations.

We're looking specifically, we've done traditionally in the office a lot of civil enforcement um against new economy companies, uh handy, um DoorDash.

Uh the emphasis that I have now is to do more criminal enforcement.

We are the only office of that is in the city and county that is empowered to actually have criminal enforcement of the wage and hour laws for the most egregious violators and specifically um looking for uh cases and having cases that uh reach the most vulnerable members of the population, uh people who are earning subminimum wage.

Um Department of Labor Standards and Office of Labor Standards Enforcement does a wonderful job.

Um they have they've recovered a lot of money, um, but even with that situation, only six percent of the restitution recipients in those cases were in the population that I'm looking to target.

Um to conduct a criminal investigation, you have to have an investigator.

I can't put myself on the stand in in a court.

Uh so that's uh the this is specifically to combat wage theft, also in support of um human labor trafficking cases, which by definition involve wage theft.

Uh Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thanks so much, Chair Chen.

This is uh close to my heart.

When I worked in the city attorney's office, I always felt the wage theft um cases were some of the most important work we can do, not just to bring wrongdoers to justice, but also to send a message that this is not a city that's going to tolerate that kind of exploitation.

So I'm happy to support this.

I'm curious about um, does this does the district attorney's office do wage theft cases with its 1720 authority as well?

Yes, we do.

Uh we had a case against Handy, which is um uh like you know handy person uh app uh based services that resulted in a significant restitution in the millions of dollars um to the victims of the wage theft there and agreement of um plethora of conditions uh that would ensure that in fact the people have the the workers actually have the independence and independent decision-making ability to be properly classified as independent contractors.

Uh we just got a that's a stipulated judgment.

We got a stipulated judgment against DoorDash in a case that was brought in 2020 before the passage of Prop 22.

That resulted in uh they stipulated to 1.8 million in civil penalties, 320,000 in restitution to a group of about 700 uh victims.

There had been early on the court had decided that uh very early on in the case that if you had been uh class member in a hundred million dollar private settlement, um you were not eligible for restitution.

So very small group.

Um so we do.

The office does bring 17200s in wage theft cases, and we are open to considering them as well and continue to uh investigate them.

Uh this uh but we also would like to focus on uh criminal enforcement because sometimes um civil penalties can just be a cost of business.

The on the civil penalties, the it's my understanding with 17200 that the r there are under the statute there's restrictions that it has to be applied to more 1720 cases and more 1720 enforcement.

Correct.

Do you ballpark know what how much the DA's office has in that account?

I do not.

Okay, that's fine.

I can I can find out.

Okay.

I'm happy to support this.

Thanks.

Um, in addition though, um, just kind of out of curiosity.

Um my assumption is the grant itself, it's it is is it a grant itself specifically about wage theft enforcement, but your units do wide range of things, why more than just wage theft and and as you indicated.

Um, and what about anything that is related to a cow ocean violation?

Well, how well how do we deal with that on a local level?

Sure.

Um, the dealing with cal ocean uh is a violations that also comes through the white collar crime unit of the district attorney's office, um, and is handled uh traditionally statewide.

Uh, it's handled by uh the um uh dedicated lawyer in the case that handles those types of cases.

Um, and there is an it's usually the same investigator that does the environmental um uh uh investigations as well.

Um so uh there's a mechanism there.

Um this grant from the Department of Industrial Relations, though, is only to be used to support uh wage theft investigations and so.

Thank you so much for your work.

It's very important work.

We appreciate you.

Thank you.

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

Yes, if we have any members of the public, wish to address this committee regarding this item number four.

That was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Thank you.

And seeing no public comments, public comments now closed.

I would like to move this item to a full board with a recommendation and uh roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey I chair Chan.

I Chan, I we have two eyes with member and guardio excused.

The motion passes.

Yes, item number five is a resolution retroactively approving the agreement between the city acting by and through the Department of Children, youth, and their families, and the San Francisco Unified School District for the Student Success Fund for a term of one year from July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026, and for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 29 million, hence authorized DCYF to make any modifications to the agreement that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreement or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, and Director Dorsey Smith.

It's good to see you again.

Great to see you too.

Thank you, and good morning, Chair Chan and Vice Chair Dorsey.

Um, Sharice Dorsey Smith, uh executive Director for the Department of Children, Youth and Families.

And I'm here today to present the Citizen SuccessFa and San Francisco Unified School District agreement for your approval.

Um as you are aware, in November of 2022, voters passed proposition G.

This legislation amends the city's charter to provide additional set aside money for the school district from existing city funds to be placed in a new student success fund.

Just to remind you of the benefits of this wonderful fund is that it provides long-term funding for innovative and effective strategies that are necessary for all students to achieve academic success and social emotional wellness at their school sites.

The educational goals that are accomplished is in deep collaboration with the students, parents, educators, and staff of community-based organizations that use strategies like the community schools model.

This contract with SFUSD for the student success fund is over 10 million and requires board approval.

And it's from July 1st, 2025 through June 30, 2026, with the not to exceed amount of 28 million 996,871.

Next slide.

So there are three sections of funding that I just want to bring to your attention.

So we have grants to schools, district innovation, and administration.

Under grants to schools, there's three subcategories.

You have rapid response, readiness grants, and implementation grants.

For rapid response, that's short-term funds for emergency needs and emergent strategies that come from the school sites.

For the readiness grants, these are grants that were allocated to school sites to support the development of a cohesive community school plan.

And then you have the implementation grants, which are the funds to actually manage the community schools plan that those school sites have already established.

Under district innovations, there's two categories.

You have the district innovation grants, and I know it's double to say district innovation and district innovation grants, but these grants will support cutting-edge ideas and programming that results in higher academic achievement, social emotional learning at all the eligible school sites.

This is these grant this particular grant is with the central office and school staff, so it requires a partnership between the two school sites.

It has to be two or more school sites that actually participate in this district innovation grants.

And then it's the technical assistance, and this is the technical assistance and capacity building that's provided to all the school sites, both readiness school sites and district innovation school sites to help support the movement of the program, the development to provide the professional development needed to teachers, to staff, and to ensure that the school is able to meet the goals that they identified.

And then the last bucket is administration, and that's just support to both SFUSD and DCYF to administer these grants.

Next slide.

So I'm not gonna go through these two slides.

I'm gonna leave this for you to peruse at your leisure.

This is just a small, small recap of what happened last year.

There'll be a more comprehensive report that's gonna come out in October that'll cover what was done for the grants to schools and district innovation as well as our technical assistance and capacity building.

It'll talk about the goals of the schools and where they are in meeting those midterm goals that should be met by 2026 and then their long-term goals in 2029.

So we will go through this slide and the next.

That just gives you under district innovation a little snapshot of some success for the whole school lesson study pilot, which focuses on math and literacy for four schools, where they started and where they ended at the end of last school year.

So finally, the student success fund provides additional resources to SFUSD to accomplish the grade level success in core academic subjects and then to improve the social emotional wellness.

In fiscal year 25-26, $35 million is allocated for student success fund with $28.9 million um to be contracted with SFUSD for the grants to schools, the district innovation grants, as well as a small portion for administration.

What's new is that we did a 10% is allocated for as needed projects that come up.

It could be an expansion into the grants for schools and to district innovation or what have you, but approximately $3.2 million will be contracted out directly to DCYF for technical assistance and evaluation with 1.225 million going towards administrative support.

And with that I'm complete, and thank you.

Good morning, Nick Minard from the budget legislative analyst office.

Item five is a resolution that uh retroactively approves a grant agreement between DCYF and the school district.

The agreement uh runs from July 2025 through uh June 2026 and has a value of 28.9 million dollars.

We summarize the different grant types on page five of our report and also the programs on page 11 of our report.

There are about 58 programs to individual schools and then three district district innovation programs funded by this grant now.

We also uh show uh the budget for this grant and the overall student success fund on page seven of the report.

Um 35 million dollars is budgeted for the student success fund in this year's budget.

Uh this grant is 28.9 million dollars, and DCYF is retaining about six million dollars for administration um and technical assistance, which is funded by under separate contracts.

Uh the so I think relative to last year the programs have come into focus, the performance measures of the of the programs that were supposed to be developed by December 2024 were developed and we reviewed those.

We don't know what the actual outcomes against those measures are yet, because that report won't be ready until October, so we can review those next year when we look at the grant next year.

We recommend approval of item five.

Thank you.

Um Dr.

Dorsey Smith, I think my question is that you know, according to the budget and legislative analyst report, you will be recruiting and selecting a third-party evaluators to help you evaluate some of these um performance uh and and setting up matrix of these or according to the matrix uh and baseline.

Um can you help us understand one your timeline for that you've got to select that evaluators, and then second, it's also the funding for that as well as the funding source for that uh hiring that firm for evaluation.

Yeah, so we're in the process of selecting the evaluator, identifying who it will be with a uh provider that we worked with last year and going into this year, they're gonna they're helping us create the report that will be coming out in October.

But for the evaluator, we want to look at two years of um data, two years of the program being implemented.

Is this the right approach?

Are these the right categories?

Is this the right way we need to be supporting the schools?

So they will be able to produce a report in June 2026.

I'll say I'll say July 2026.

Um, that encapsulates those things.

Um, the funding source is student success fund dollars, so it's part of that 3.2 that we're retaining, those dollars will support um the um evaluate and evaluators who we select.

Got it.

And so it's a three point uh three point four million dollars within the uh administrative costs.

Is that what it is?

It's the um no, it's the uh it's the 3.2 that we have toward TA and evaluation, but not all of that goes to evaluation, so around close to 2 million is um embedded into TA and capacity building with the multiple providers for all the school sites, and then currently there's um around I think it's 400,000 that we're looking at for the evaluation.

Understood for the from the technical support category.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I don't have any additional questions.

Thank you so much for your work.

I'm really excited, and this is gonna be right.

Like, this is coming in very critical time, I think, for SFUSD.

I appreciate their partnership.

I really do appreciate your work to really making sure that they they're successful.

Now we just need to make you like a permanent director for us.

That may be coming soon.

I appreciate that.

Thank you.

And I supporter of it.

I just want to say out loud on the record that I really appreciate your work.

I think you and the uh superintendents too make a great partner, um, you know, and in trying to turn this around, and you really have been.

Um, and I think that serves San Francisco family as well.

So we appreciate your work.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

And I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board to the positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have two ayes with member and guardio excused.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number six.

Yes, item number six is a resolution approving amendment number one to the terminal to retail market in and Harvey Mill Terminal One.

Specialty retail stores concessions lease between MRG San Francisco Terminal 2 LLC as tenant and the city and county acting by in through its airport commission as landlord for the addition of three locations to the premises of the Terminal 2 retail market for a term of 12 years to commence on October 1st, 2025 through October 1st, 2037, with no adjustment to the minimum annual guarantee of 2.3 million.

Madam Chair.

And we have SFO, San Francisco Airport here.

Good morning, Chair Chan.

Good morning, Vice Chair Dorsey Danielsing with uh SFO.

The airport is seeking your approval of amendment number one to an existing lease with MRG San Francisco Terminal 2 LLC.

Um this amendment proposes a permanent addition of a 409 square foot news wall and a temporary addition of two specialty retail stores measuring 563 square feet and 609 square feet respectively.

Uh there will be no changes to uh the current 12-year lease term or the minimum annual guarantee rent of 2.3 million while MRG occupies the news wall and the temporary specialty retail spaces.

Um the annual promotional charge will increase from 6,915 to 8,496.

And uh once the temporary retail spaces are vacated, the charge will adjust to 7,324.

Uh, this amendment is intended to partially mitigate the more than three-year delay MRG has experienced in accessing its permanent location in terminal two.

Uh the delays are due to a temporary relocation of the AMX Centurion Lounge from Terminal 3, which is undergoing the redevelopment as part of the Terminal 3 West development project.

Um the airport anticipates that AMX will vacate the space sometime between October 2027 and March 2028, depending on the progress of the development project.

Uh the BALA has recommended approval and happy to answer any questions after the report.

Item six is a resolution that approves an amendment to a lease agreement between the airport and MRG San Francisco Terminal 2 LLC.

Uh we summarize the change uh to the space.

Um that's leased on page 20 of our report.

Um, what is essentially happening here is that one of the spaces that is part of the original lease is not available uh to the tenant, so the airport's providing two temporary spaces and one permanent space uh to um attempt to make them partially whole for not being able to use that space.

These three additional spaces are still um less than the space that they're not able to use and in part for that reason there's no change uh to the minimum guaranteed rent under the lease.

The airport will generate additional revenue um because even though there's no mag change and uh no mag for these spaces, there is um percentage rent uh that will be generated from uh new business at these spaces.

So we recommend approval of item six.

Thank you.

Uh I don't have additional questions today.

Um thank you for your work on this, and uh so we'll go to public comment on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number six, now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to forward to the full board to the positive recommendation of Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes.

The motion passes.

Shall Clark, please call item number seven.

Yes, item number seven is a resolution authorizing the Department of Technology to approve the second amendment with ATT doing business as ATT mobility to purchase public safety grade wireless communication services for first responders, extending the term by 18 months from October 1st, 2025 for a total term of June 23rd, 2020 through April 21st, 2027, and increasing the agreement amount by approximately 7.3 million for a total contract amount not to exceed 29.6 million pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Department of Technology here.

Hi, good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dossi and colleagues.

My name is Hao Seer, strategic sourcing manager with the Department of Technology.

I'm here to seek your approval of the second amendment to the first net agreement with ATT.

The proposed amendment makes two simple changes to the existing agreement.

It extends the contract term by 18 months and increases the NOCTX amount by 7.3 million.

FirstNet is a public safety grade wireless network that prioritizes first responders and supporting departments during emergencies.

Today, 17 departments are using the network.

The top five US are police, MTA, DPW, Shelly, and Recon Park.

The estimated annual spend is about 4.8 million in 2025.

And the average monthly cost is 44.22 cents per line.

This amendment is necessary for three reasons.

First, it aligned with the state's carnet contract timeline.

Second, it ensures we continue receiving the carnet contract benefits such as no minimum commitment, months to months flexibility with no termination fee, and guaranteed best pricing.

Third, it supports the city's top priority on public safety and clean streets.

I also want to highlight the work DT has done to control cost.

For example, in 2023, we implemented the citywide mobile device use policy and developed the dormant cell phone tool.

Over the past two years, we'll remove 1,161 in active lines and slow spending growth from nearly 30% in FY22 to 10 to 11% in FY24 and 25.

Going forward, we will continue to provide data and support city oversight to strengthen departmental accountability.

Before closing, I would like to thank my colleagues, Fengwa Wang and Jolene Paula for their outstanding analytical support.

They're also here to help answer questions if you have any.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Item seven is a resolution that approves an amendment to the Department of Technologies Agreement with ATT.

The amendment extends the agreement 18 months and then adds um 7.3 million dollars to the not to exceed amount for a total value of 29.6 million dollars.

This is um the purpose of the extension is so it can be co-terminous with the state's agreement with ATT for these services.

Um the city basically piggybacks off that agreement uh for this contract.

Um we note that there's been a lot of growth in cellular devices in San Francisco over the past several years.

Um in 2020, the city administrator issued a policy around device management that DT is partially responsible for.

They provided a lot of data to us uh as part of our review of this contract.

And it shows that they have been deactivating, providing reports to departments so that departments can deactivate lines when they're inactive.

Under that policy, departments are supposed to also provide the Department of Technology with a justification for the business use of each cell line.

That doesn't always happen.

And so based on the data that we got from DT, so the city has about 20,000 cell devices.

About 15% of them, 3600, do not have or inactive, meaning that there's been no activity in 60 days, and then of those, just over half of them have no documented business justification.

Um so under the under the policy, it really is up to the departments, um, like the financial managers at each city department to terminate those devices.

Provide report to department so that they can manage their cell phone use.

Um and so just crunching the numbers.

We think that there's about $984,000 in potential savings if the inactive cellular lines with no business justification are deactivated.

So that's one.

The other one, the other potential area of savings is that this particular cell plan is for first responders.

It's higher cost for that reason.

There's also three other cell contracts that the city has with ATT Verizon and T Mobile for more typical use.

There's a there's a range in monthly costs from those providers, and there could be some savings by concentrating among the lowest cost provider rather than letting people choose.

So those are the policy considerations for this item, but I think this particular amendment um we recommend approval of item seven.

Thank you.

So I think this is more for the mayor's budget office.

If you could be so kind to send uh, you know, this uh note to Director Kittler and letting her know that in this coming budget, we are looking forward to see um that for all the city departments to implement the policy uh by the time that they come back for their budget proposal is that any inactive line uh for 60 days, they should just end it uh or provide a business justification, knowing that we could save up to almost a million dollars per year, and that you know I think that we need to evaluate with city departments for those that are not first responder, uh non-emergency cell phone um holders or cell phone accounts uh need to be reevaluated and be aligned with the city's policy uh under both the department of technology and the city administrator.

Yes, thank you.

Um so thank you for your presentation today.

We appreciate you bringing this to us, and I also really appreciate Department of Technology uh for the last couple of years, your efforts both to consolidate the contract um and to make sure that we get the best uh you know, more bang for our buck, but also um the fact that you kind you really push forward with the policy, but I think that this is the moment where we're we're gonna look to the administration to provide us uh some little bit of the oomph to to really make it work.

So thank you.

Yeah, thank you, Chair Chan.

Thank you.

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

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item number seven, that was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed.

Uh I would like to move this item to four board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward to the full board.

Well, the positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes with the member and guardio excused.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clark, please call items eight and nine together.

Yes, item numbers eight and nine.

Our resolutions approving contracts between the city and county acting by and through the Office of Contract Administration, with the following, with an initial term of five years uh commencing on November 1st, 2025 through October 31st, 2030, with the option to extend for up to three additional years and to authorize OCA to enter into amendments or modifications that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary and are necessary to affect the per uh the purposes of the respective contracts.

Item number eight is with Golden Gate Petroleum for the supply of diesel fuel for a total not to exceed amount of 195 million, and item number nine is with Pacific Coast Petroleum for the supply of gasoline fuel for a total not to exceed amount of ninety-three million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

And today we have the Office of Contract Administration here.

Good morning, Chair Chan.

Good morning, Supervisor Dorsey.

I'm Sophie Hayward here on behalf of the Office of Contract Administration from the Office of the City Administrator.

We are here with a request for approval of two fuel contracts for the city, one for diesel and one for gasoline, and I have a short presentation here.

The proposed contract with Golden Gate Petroleum for the supply of diesel fuel has a total not to exceed amount of $195 million.

And the proposed contract with Pacific Coast Petroleum for gasoline has a total not to exceed amount of $93 million, and both have an initial five-year term that would begin on November 1st, and an option to extend for three additional years.

So first up, we have the diesel contract.

The contract itself provides diesel fuel for all city departments, but by far the heaviest user is MTA, which accounts for about 80% of the encumbrances on the contract.

The total not to exceed amount is based on average annual spending over the last four years, which was about 17.6 million dollars, and that includes a 20% contingency to account for market volatility and fluctuation.

Fuel delivery prices in both uh cases for gas and diesel is based on what's published by the oil price information service, which is an independent industry reset research firm.

Golden Gate Petroleum was selected as part of a competitive process, a competitive solicitation conducted this summer, and this was the lowest of the four responsive bidders.

And then the second contract is the gasoline contract.

This is with Pacific Coast Petroleum.

The contract provides gas for all city departments, and in this case, the primary user is the fleet management division, which accounts for over 60% of the encumbrances.

The $93 million NTE is uh included in this contract, is also based on the average annual spending, which is about $8.3 million over the last four years, and includes a 20% contingency to account for market fluctuations.

Pacific Coast Petroleum was also selected this summer after a competitive process that yielded four responsive bidders, and it was the lowest bidder.

We recommend that this committee authorize OCA to enter into the two contracts for fuel, one with Golden Gate Petroleum and one with Pacific Coast Petroleum for gasoline.

And that is if this is okay to note this at this moment.

Uh of the Pacific Coast Petroleum contract.

The contract number is one zero zero zero three six eight two one.

We had originally submitted a contract number that ended in two three.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Items eight and nine are two resolutions that approve new contracts with fuel providers.

Uh 25084 is um a resolution approving a contract with Golden Gate Petroleum for diesel fuel for up to $195 million dollars, and 25085 is a resolution approving a contract with Pacific Coast Petroleum for gasoline for $93 million dollars.

Each contract has a five-year initial term with three uh optional extensions for one year.

So the total term would be eight years.

The as we detail on page 33 of the report.

Based on historical spending, approximately 70% of gasoline purchases are funded by the general fund, but only 17% of diesel purchases are funded by the general fund because most of the diesel is actually used by MTA.

The contracts also include performance measures to protect the city, including delivery time frames, uh product availability, and other kinds of reporting to OCA.

And we recommend approval of items eight and nine.

Thank you.

I don't have additional questions.

Thank you so much for bringing this forward.

But I'll ask I have some like just a technical questions, but not important.

I'll ask offline.

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

If we have any members of the public and we should address this committee regarding both these items eight and nine, that was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comment, public comment is now closed.

I would like to move these two items to full four with recommendation uh in a roll call, please.

Uh, madam chair, before we take that vote, uh there was a main amendment.

I would like to first amend uh is that the item number nine?

Sorry.

Item number nine, thank you.

Item number nine um as uh proposed by the Office of Contract Administration uh to correct the number for the proposed contract, and to move the amended item number nine and item eight to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to accept the amendments to item number nine to correct the contract number.

Hint to forward both resolutions to the full board to the positive recommendation item nine is amended.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I Chair Chan.

I Chan, I we have two ayes with member Guardial excused.

Um the motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us today?

Uh Madam Chair that concludes our business.

Thank you, and the meeting is adjourned.

Um, I think that's what we're talking about.