Good morning. The meeting will come to order. Welcome to the November 19, 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 and Member Supervisor Bala Mahmoud. Our Clerk is Brent Halepa. I would

I'd like to thank Jamie Atcheverry from SFGovTV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr. Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones

and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

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

it should be submitted to myself, the clerk.

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

When your item of interest comes up and 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 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 brent.jalipa at sfgov.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, be good with place, room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, due to the Thanksgiving week, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors' agenda of December 2, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And before we call on item number one, for the general public, for all items that has that budget and legislative analyst report, we would typically go to the department presentation, then we go to the budget and legislative analyst, and then we will take questions and public comments.

And so with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is an ordinance appropriating approximately $4.5 million of state cost reimbursement revenue to the Department of Elections to support costs associated with the statewide November 2025 special election in fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

And this ordinance requires two-thirds approval vote of all members of the Board of Supervisors for approximately $4.2 million pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clark, and today we have Department of Elections Director John Nords.

Good morning, supervisors.

So the purpose of the ordinance before you today is to allow the city to utilize state funding

totaling around $4.5 million to reimburse the city for its costs associated with conducting

the November 4, 2025 statewide special election.

This amount represents an estimate of expected costs that the Department of Elections submitted

to the state before the election.

At this time, the department has yet to finalize its actual costs for the November election,

and the department must report final election-related costs to the Secretary of State's office by February 20, 2026.

Although final actual election-related costs haven't been set,

we still expect these funds to cover the city's expenditures to conduct the November 2025 election.

Finally, the state legislation authorizing these reimbursement funds indicates that counties

can apply any remaining funds to cover costs associated with conducting the

statewide June 2nd 2026 election and I could take any questions but I think

it's the BLS report now yeah morning supervisors Nick Menard from the budget

legislative analyst office item one is an ordinance that would appropriate

about 4.5 million dollars of state revenue that was not in the Department

of Elections budget.

The revenue was provided by the state

to all counties in California to offset

the cost of the special election that took place November 4,

2025 related to Proposition 50.

We summarize the spending on page three of our report.

You can see how the Department of Elections

will spend this money.

And any unspent money from the state

can be used for the next statewide election.

This appears to cover all costs associated

with the November 2020 election,

and we recommend approval of item one.

Thank you.

Dr. Arts, do you have any projection,

potentially any saving that you could end up

having from this reimbursement and that then you

can actually spend on the June election in 2026?

Possibly.

We don't have final costs set yet,

But we did focus on staffing costs for this November election.

So we are hopeful that we can apply some reimbursement funds

to support the conduct of the June 2nd election

with staffing costs.

I don't see any name on the roster.

We will go to public comments on this item.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who

joined us today who wish to address this committee

regarding this item number one, now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers. Seeing no public comments, public comment is now

closed. Colleagues, 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 with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey. Dorsey aye. Member

Mahmood. Mahmood aye. Chair Chan. Aye. Chan aye. We have three ayes. The motion passes. Thank you.

Mr. Clerk, please call item number two. Item number two is a resolution approving

the revised terms and conditions and authorizing the general manager of the San Francisco Public

Utilities Commission and or City's Director of Property to execute a purchase and sale

agreement and easement deeds with the Southern Glen Unified School District for the acquisition

of an approximately 4,000 square foot easement for an underground water pipeline and associated

appurtenances and an approximately 35,000 square foot temporary construction easement

on and across a portion of Alameda County Assessor's Parcel Block, known as 11601 Main Street in

Sutherland, California, for $35,000 plus an administrative fee of $5,000 and up to $10,000

in closing costs for a total amount not to exceed $50,000, which will be effective on the date the

agreement is executed by both parties pursuant to the Charter. Madam Chair. Thank you. And today we

have SF Public Utilities Commission here. Thank you. Good morning, supervisors. My name is Dina

Brazil. I'm the right-of-way manager with the San Francisco Public Utilities Commission's

Infrastructure Division, and I'm tasked with acquiring the property rights necessary to

deliver the SFPUC's capital programs. The item before you seeks to correct the terms of a purchase

and sale agreement that was previously recommended by this committee on October 30th of 2024

and subsequently by the Board of Supervisors on November 5th of 2024.

The purchase and sale agreement covers the acquisition of easements for a water pipeline

across property owned by the Sunil Glen Unified School District for the SFPUC's Town of Sunil

Pipeline Project. The Town of Sunil Pipeline is a critical asset that feeds both the potable

water line and the non-potable fire suppression lines to the town of Sunul. The SFPUC has replaced

most of the aging pipeline system, and this current project will complete the effort by

replacing the section of the pipeline that crosses the school. The SFPUC already owns an easement for

the existing pipeline across the school property. However, the new pipeline needed to be bumped out

and installed just north of the existing alignment to avoid removing a mature tree that lies within

the existing easement. SFPUC staff had worked with the superintendent of the Sunil Glen Unified

School District to negotiate an agreement for the purchase and sale of the easement.

We worked together to craft an agreement that would schedule work around the academic calendar

when students would not be on site, and our temporary areas of disturbance were designed

to preserve as much as possible the outdoor education and play areas. The school superintendent

with whom we'd worked retired in 2024, and the school district brought on a new superintendent.

At around the same time, the school district experienced a change in leadership at the

school board level as well. When we reached out to the new superintendent to move the agreement

forward and close the transaction, she re-engaged the school district's council and school board,

and the school district requested that certain changes be made to the forms. Unfortunately,

one of the requested changes resulted in a material increase in the city's obligations

under the agreement, which requires the approval of the Board of Supervisors.

In the materials I provided with this item, I included a draft of the revised agreement

redlined against the draft that had been previously approved. For transparency, I included all the

changes to the form. However, only the change to Section 8 regarding the indemnification requires

the approval of the Board of Supervisors.

In the original agreement, this section only included a seller's indemnity.

In the agreement before you today, the proposed revisions narrow the seller's obligations

and include a mutual obligation on the city's part to indemnify the other party.

We consulted with our risk management team and concluded that the changes to the indemnity

are reasonable and they fall within the range of our normal business practices.

It's customary that such agreements include indemnification provisions that benefit the landlord.

What you would be recommending for approval today is a revised purchase and sale agreement

for the conveyance of a perpetual pipeline easement comprised of approximately 4,008 square feet

and a temporary construction easement comprised of approximately 34,834 square feet.

The total purchase price for the two easements is still $35,000,

which is equal to the appraised value, as was determined by an independent third-party appraiser.

At this time, I'm happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

So is the amendment in Section 8, the indemnity?

Is that correct?

Help me understand and walk me through just a little bit more,

because I'm looking at the documents on file at the moment,

and I am seeing a few things and I'm trying to understand.

Could you walk us through page number and section?

Is it section 8 on page 11?

It's section 8.

I'm not sure what page it is because I don't have it in front of me right now,

but it's the indemnification section.

So our standard form of purchase and sale agreement,

which was what was agreed to in 2024, contains only a seller's indemnity,

which means that just the seller would be indemnifying the city.

That provision generally gets negotiated with every agreement that we make.

And it's really common.

It's very uncommon for it to stay just a seller's indemnity.

In this case, when the new superintendent and their council and their school board looked at it,

they said, you know, wait a minute, we want the PUC to indemnify us as well.

And so rather than removing the indemnity altogether, we did sort of a mutual indemnification,

which does increase our obligation under the agreement and therefore required the Board of Supervisors approval.

None of the other changes in the form actually are material in that way.

A lot of them are editorial.

A lot of them are just to be more explicit.

so our city attorney's office wouldn't have required that I come before you today

if it had not been for the indemnification section.

And then I see that is basically, I'm just trying to understand what we're doing.

It looks like in section 8 that now it shows indicating the seller indemnity

and then the cities as well.

And then there's the limitation sections for it.

Yes. So we are indemnifying them as well. And we can be comforted by the fact that our project

contractor who's actually performing the work indemnifies us. So that city's indemnity then

gets passed on to the contractor through our construction contract. Thank you. I really

appreciate this coming before us today. And thank you so much for your work. Yeah, of course.

and seeing no name on the roster we will go to public comments on this item yes we are now

opening public comment for this item number two 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 colleagues 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 with a positive recommendation

Vice Chair Dorsey? Aye. Dorsey, aye. Member Mahmood? Mahmood, aye. Chair Chan? Aye. Chan,

aye. We have three ayes. The motion passes. Thank you. And Mr. Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving amendment number one to the agreement between the

city acting by and through the Department of Public Health and Catholic Charities to provide

HIV health services, rental subsidy services, to extend the term by five years from June 30,

2026 for a total term of July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2031, and to increase the amount by

approximately $7.3 million for a total not to exceed the amount of approximately $13.4 million,

and to authorize DPH to enter into amendments or modifications to the agreement that did not

materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to

effectuate the purposes of the agreement or this resolution. Madam Chair. Thank you and today we

have Department of Public Health here. Hi good morning. Good morning Chair Chan and Supervisors

Dorsey and Mahmood. I'm here to request your support for an amendment to Catholic Charities

for HIV services rental subsidies. You can advance the slide please.

So the amendment requested is for Catholic Charities.

The contract amount is $7,317,206.

The total amount not to exceed $13,426,414.

The timeline is June 1st, 2021 through June 30th of 2031,

so it will be extending in an additional five years.

The contract as mentioned was Catholic Charities,

and it's to provide rental subsidies to low-income San Francisco,

San Franciscans with HIV.

So just to add, we did agree with two recommendations

that BLS have already made and have begun work already

with the contractor to revise the budget and made changes

to the two program objectives that were identified.

So any questions?

No, thank you.

Oh, well, not this time.

Good morning.

Item three is a resolution that approves an amendment on a contract between the Department of Public Health and Catholic Charities.

The amendment extends the agreement from June 2026 to June 2031,

and then increases the contract value from about $6.1 million to $13.4 million.

dollars. Under this agreement, DPH funds Catholic Charities to provide rental subsidies to people

who are low income and living with HIV. It provides about $450 a month to about 154 households

every year. And the contract is funded by the General Fund. You can see the contract budget

on page 10 of our report. We did have a couple of recommendations to the Department of Public

Health when reviewing this contract, including to consider reallocating some of the indirect

cost recovery on this contract from Catholic charities to rental subsidies, to be consistent

with other rental subsidy contracts in the city, and also to clarify with Catholic charities on

the definition of some of the performance metrics, because as we kind of dug into the guts of the

performance in this particular contract. We noticed that there was, I think, different

interpretations between DPH and Catholic Charities about how to measure performance on the contract.

And so we had a discussion with HIV Health Services, and they're going to clarify how

performance metrics should be defined going forward. And we also think this is an opportunity

for the city to kind of harmonize the performance measurement of the rental subsidy contracts.

There are rental subsidy contracts at DPH, at HSH, at the adult probation.

They all have, they're all trying to measure similar things in terms of how

quickly people enter the program, if people are in the program, how long are

they housed and are they stably housed for a year, and where they exit to if they

exit their rental subsidy program. The definitions of all those metrics vary by

department. So this could be an opportunity to make it easier on the nonprofits, some of which

hold contracts with each of these departments, including Catholic charities, to harmonize some

of those performance measurement standards. But we do recommend that the board approve item three.

Happy to answer any other questions. Thank you. I think my question is,

How is the performance tracking recorded?

Like, how is it paper trail?

Is it, like, computer?

Or how does that work?

Yeah, actually there is a database which the state requires for all Ryan White funding,

which is, of course, federal funding for HIV.

And then we, a number of our agencies also receive general fund,

and we have the same requirements.

So they actually have to put in demographics as well as service utilization.

Some of these, they can't necessarily pull every aspect of the data.

So one of the things is kind of retention and housing stability.

That wouldn't necessarily be there.

They have to do a chart review.

But probably about 70%, 85% of all the objectives can be pulled.

And there is so – I'm just trying to understand better.

Does that mean that they can actually key in the data and information on sites?

And it goes into a statewide database.

And actually, then that registry, it's called HIV Care Connect,

is actually fed up to federal reporting.

So most agencies either have an electronic chart

or they have a hard chart combination,

depending on the size of the agency.

And then how does DPH, I don't want to use the word audit,

but sort of review and evaluate those data?

Yeah, so we go on a yearly basis.

There is a section called the Business Office of Contract Compliance,

and they go on a yearly basis and they do a monitoring,

and we join them as what they call a subject matter aspect

or system of care people,

so people that are kind of familiar with the contract,

and we go with them and we do on-site audits once a year.

And that's how that contract monitoring report is the product of that.

Great.

I mean, I think I'm interested to learn more about that

and how do you sort of what is your response

for the BLA's recommendation?

It was yes to do.

Would you like to, I have the specifics of the wording.

We've already changed it.

Are you interested?

Yes, absolutely.

Okay.

I just happen to have that paper right here.

So it's two contract objectives.

One is the program will stabilize the housing situation

of greater than 80% of the program participants

in less than six months of receiving the initial subsidy,

and the recommendation for consistency was to increase that to 90%.

And so actually this contract year they were actually at 100%,

so that was very easy to do.

And the second one was really around the denominator.

It was looking at how do you measure retention and care

if you could potentially have people joining 10, 11, 12 months of the contract year.

Do you have enough longitudinal kind of runway to assess

has housing stability been maintained?

So the change is that greater or equal to 85% of subsidy program recipients who are receiving the subsidy at the start of the contract year will continue.

So that's the new language at the start of the contract year.

Will continue to have maintained housing or have moved to a level of care more appropriate to their needs by the end of the contract year.

So some people aren't able to maintain independent living, so we factor those folks out.

And we did actually run the data using that definition, reducing those that hadn't been in, and they got a 97.3%, so they've been very successful.

But it is a better wording for sure, so we changed the denominator.

Wonderful. We appreciate it.

Supervisor Mabu.

I was actually going to ask the same question, but just a quick follow-up, so thanks for asking, Chair Chan.

I guess how common is this metric to be said this was not reported how it was requested and how often is 100% success rate normally reported?

That would be an anomaly.

So for you, I'm not sure I've completely understood your question, but I'll take a gander at it and then you can tell me if I haven't gotten it.

So in terms of the utilization, they measure on a monthly, they have to invoice it on a monthly basis.

And then in terms of the contract objectives are measured on a yearly basis.

So at the end of the year, the contract year, they have to produce this report that shows the work that they've done.

So you won't know the updated metrics based on the new calculation criteria until next year?

The outcome of it?

Yeah, because they have to actually provide the service so the soonest we could measure it.

So it's from the beginning we've changed it so those in the first six months,

they have to longitudinally be for the year, so that would be the soonest we could measure it.

You can't retroactively determine it for the last year?

Retroactively measure it?

You mean to go back?

Yes, we can look.

Do you want to end?

Yes, this is Beth Neri.

Hi, Beth Neri, Assistant Director of HIV Health Services.

We did have them rerun last year's for the ones that needed to be excluded for new clients.

And by last year, I actually mean the 23-24 to match the report you were looking at.

And they did actually get 22 out of 22 on two of those metrics after a closer review.

One hadn't been 100% until they limited to the current year.

And that is not completely surprising given their particular service model

because they, in order for somebody to be on a subsidy,

which is required to be in a denominator,

they do really need to check their income status

and connect them with housing within a month, you know,

of being on the subsidy.

So it's possible that we need to make some more difficult

to achieve metrics to add in to the mix,

but it is realistic for some of these metrics to be 100%.

Got it.

Thank you for context.

Thank you.

So with that, we'll go to public comment on this item.

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

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.

Colleagues, I would like to send this item to full board with recommendation,

with the fact that they have now addressed and clarified the definition of performance metrics.

I appreciate the effort and the roll call, please, on that motion.

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

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Mahmoud.

Mahmoud, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you for your support.

Thank you.

And Mr. Clerk, please call item number four.

Yes, item number four is a resolution retroactively authorizing the fire department to accept and

expend a grant in the amount of approximately $637,000 from the Federal Emergency Management

Agency through the California Office of Emergency Services for the Fire Department's new training

facility for the performance period of August 1st, 2024 through April 20th, 2027, and waiving

indirect costs. Madam Chair. Thank you. And today we have the Fire Department here. Good morning,

Madam Chair. Good morning, members of the committee. Mark Corso, Finance and Planning at the Fire

department to present on the next item, which is an acceptance of a FEMA grant

through coordinated through the state's California Office of Emergency Services

in the amount of $637,200 as it relates to our new training facility as well as

the department's Emergency Operations Center. The department would like to

thank Speaker Emerita Pelosi and her office for support in obtaining this

funding through FEMA.

So this is a fiscal year 24 FEMA Emergency Operations Center grant

focusing on emergency readiness and coordination of an incident

with funds intended to support departmental and jurisdictions

emergency operations center capabilities.

So the department's approved proposal

was to use this grant funding to support the emergency operations

center that will be part of the department's new training

facility which is a project that is currently underway with the support and

cooperation of DPW. This is an area that this project is underway and the funds

will be go will be used for the backup supporting emergency operations center

that will exist in that facility to support department operations across the

city. There is one piece I do want to clarify this is there is retroactive

language on this resolution. In general the department's grants have a lot of

retroactive conditions from a technicality perspective in discussing

with the city attorney's office generally when we are awarded a grant

award our performance period starts the day of award and so in discussions with

the city attorney's office it's always cleaner to start a retroactive approval

given we've already started the period of performance we have not spent many

made any expenditures move forward outside of the planning process of any

funds for this grant so we're not actually requesting retroactive

approval of expenditures just as a technicality it's been included as

retroactive so happy to answer any questions thank you what is the total

budget for the the project now for the entire training facility I believe it's

175 million. How much do have we secure? So that is covered through the

Easter bond program through the city and I can give you a brief update actually

on overall project timelines. I checked in with our project manager yesterday so

these are pretty current updates. We just received 95% construction documents.

We're currently going through the tail end of permitting. The 12 December 8th

is tentatively set as our date for demolition. There's not a huge amount. It's a pretty open

space for demolition, so they're going to be doing that and then doing some work on the pilings,

but we anticipate January, February beginning construction and completion in the fall of 2028.

But we have secured all 175 million? Correct. Congratulations. Thank you. That's huge. Yeah,

That's a huge big deal for the department.

That's awesome.

Well, we will keep our fingers and toes crossed for you

as you go through the construction phase.

And congratulations on securing all the fundings for the facility,

and we're glad that you now have additional funding from this grant.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Mamou.

One quick question.

I noticed in the grant application it was originally for $2 million,

but the state, I believe, only awarded the 637 that we are accepting here today.

Was there any explanation from the state why they only gave that lower amount?

In discussion with Representative Pelosi's office and FEMA at the time,

it was intended to be a multi-year grant program

where we could apply for a different project every year.

Given the change in federal administration,

that is still kind of up in the air on how that will be moving forward,

but this is the full amount that we've secured to date.

Got it.

And it sounds like given you secured the $175 million total, that gap isn't problematic in that context.

Correct.

Okay. Congratulations.

Thank you. Thank you for all for your support as well.

Thank you. And so 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 four, now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, 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 with a positive recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Mahmood.

Mahmood, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Madam Chair, that concludes our business.

Thank you.

And next week, we do not have a full board meeting

due to Thanksgiving

and do not have a budget and finance committee

next Wednesday as well.

So the meetings are adjourned.

Thank you.