Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the January 28, 2026 of the Budget and Finance Committee.

I am Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee, and I'm joined by Vice Chair Supervisor Matt Dorsey

and Member Supervisor Danny Sauter and our Clerk, Brent Halepa.

I would like to thank Sue Itnall from SFGovTV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr. Clark, do you have any announcements?

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 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 recorded for 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 Begoth 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 February 3rd, unless otherwise stated. Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk. And just a general reminder for everyone and for the public that for any items on our agenda that have budget and legislative analyst reports, we will go to the department presentation first, and then we will go to the budget and legislative analyst.

And then this body will ask questions and comment. Then we will go to public comment. And so with that, Mr. Clerk, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is a resolution authorizing the city and county acting by and through the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development to execute a standard agreement with the California Department of Housing and Community Development, or HCD, for a grant awarded in the amount of $1.5 million under CalHCD's ProHousing Incentive Program.

accept and expand anticipated revenue of PIP grant funds in the amount of $1.5 million

for the period effective upon the execution date of the standard agreement

through June 30, 2029, and authorizing MoCD to enter into any additions, amendments,

or other modifications to the standard agreement and any PIP documents

that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city

or materially decrease the benefits to the city.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have the Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development here.

Good morning.

I'm Sheila Nicolopoulos, Director of Policy at Mayor's Office of Housing and Community Development.

Before you today is a resolution authorizing MOHC to accept and expend $1.5 million grant

from the State Department of Housing and Community Development's Pro-Housing Incentive Program.

The California Pro-Housing Designation Program is a state-run initiative by HCD

designed to incentivize local governments to go above and beyond baseline law

streamlining housing production. It was established through the California's 2019-20 Budget Act,

and it recognizes cities and counties that exceed state housing requirements by, for example,

expanding zoning, reducing development hurdles, lowering costs, and subsidizing housing.

And these pro-housing jurisdictions earn priority in state grant programs and unlock access to

these funds, the Pro Housing Incentive Program, which provides additional funds to help speed up

affordable housing production and preservation. San Francisco received its pro-housing designation

from the state in October 2024, which acknowledges our policies such as inclusionary zoning and no

minimum parkings. This grant will help reduce the city's contribution towards affordable housing.

The pro-housing funds will be used to support the construction or rehabilitation of a project

in MOHCD's pipeline. When we applied for the funds in December 2024, we anticipated using the funding

for senior housing at 967 Mission, but due to changes in the financing of that project

and the timing of this grant, we now anticipate using the funds for 835 Turk, which is a building

with 106 affordable units.

Although using the funds for 835 Turk is tentative because we're still pending notification

of several other state funding resources.

So a decision about which project will receive the funds will be made in the next few months

and the grant funds will be spent within five years.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't have any other questions.

I don't see any name on the roster.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

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

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments.

Public comment is now closed.

Supervisor Dorsey, I see that you're a co-sponsor to the legislation.

What is your will for the item?

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I would like to move that we send this item out to the full Board of Supervisors with our positive recommendation and with that a roll call

Please and on that motion by Vice-Chair Dorsey that we refer this resolution to the full board with the recommendation

Vice-Chair Dorsey

Dorsey aye member Sauter Sauter aye chair Chan aye Chan aye we have three eyes the motion passes

Thank you and

Mr. Clark, please call item number two. Yes item number two is an ordinance amending the business and tax

tax regulations code to revise how access line tax applies to voice over internet protocol services

to require collection and remittance of the alt and voip services through the lower of the number

of telephone numbers provided to a subscriber and the number of calls that the subscriber can make

and or receive at the same time using those telephone numbers. Madam Chair. Thank you and

today we have the Office of Treasurer and Tax Collector. Good morning Chair Tan,

Supervisors. I'm Eric Manke with the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector.

I'm presenting for your approval an ordinance that makes a targeted and

technical change to how San Francisco's access line tax applies to voice over

internet protocol services or VoIP services. By way of background the access

line tax is a per line tax imposed on subscribers to telephone communication

services in San Francisco and applies to each access line within the city's

jurisdiction the tax is collected from the subscriber by the service provider

and then remitted to the city an access line is broadly defined and includes the

assignment of a 10-digit phone number and under existing law the tax applies to

each telephone number however voice over internet protocol or VoIP providers often provide customers

more 10-digit numbers than customers can use to make or receive calls at the same time so this

ordinance revises the application of the tax to VoIP services requiring the collection remittance

based on the lower of either the number of 10-digit phone numbers or the number of calls that can be

made or received on those numbers. So for as an example under existing law if a

service a VoIP service provider provides a customer with 100 telephone numbers

but the customer can only make 25 calls or make or receive 25 calls the tax would

apply to all 100 telephone numbers. Under this ordinance the access line tax would

apply to the 25 access lines based on the number of calls that can be made or

received so that's the technical change that would be made so with that I'll

conclude and happy to take any questions. Could you walk us through what is voice

over internet? Yes so VoIP is basically the ability to make phone calls over

the internet instead of over traditional phone lines. I'm no expert on it but

That's my general understanding of it.

Like, if I may, if it's okay.

I'm not trying to single out any companies.

And it's something like, would it be anything that is on an app that you can make calls over?

Like, be it, I don't know, like WeChat, Signal, Google, and all sorts.

Yeah, so that would be because the voice is being carried over the internet versus a traditional telephone line.

I think generally that would be referred to as voice-oriented protocol services.

And are we currently collecting tax for the voice over Internet?

We are collecting the tax, yes.

And so how would this change, how would it, in our projection of collecting that tax revenue?

We do not project, since this is very targeted and technical,

we do not project there would be a significant revenue change, not even to the level of requiring

a BLA report. Understood. And so then why is it necessary?

I know I'm the co-sponsor of this legislation. I think

I'm trying to help us understand, like, this is super

technical, in my opinion. So I'm just trying to help all of us

to walk through, like, why would this be necessary, and how is this in the best interest

of the city? It's a modernization and provides more flexibility.

To the category of identifying the voice internet company.

Exactly.

Telecommunications companies are actually using to codify and clarify how we as a city text any telecommunication companies that are currently being text and utilized and operate under voice over internet.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sure, sure.

No problem.

I just want to have you also validating what I'm saying.

That's all.

I appreciate it.

Thank you.

And I don't have any additional questions.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Thank you.

So if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this

item number two, that was your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Thank you.

And seeing no public comment and public comment is now closed.

colleagues I would appreciate for your support and would like to move this item

to full board with positive recommendation and a roll call please and

on that motion to forward this ordinance to the full board with positive

recommendation vice-chair Dorsey Dorsey I member solder solder I church hand I

Chen I we have three eyes 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 Health Right

360 to provide withdrawal management and resident tenant treatment services to extend the term by

two years from June 30th, 2026 for a new term of July 1st, 2024 through June 30th, 2028 and to

increase the amount by approximately $28.6 million for a new total not exceed amount

of approximately $38.5 million and to authorize the EPH to enter into amendments or modifications

to the agreement had to not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city

and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of this agreement or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you and today we have Department of Public Health here.

Good morning Supervisors.

My name is Kelly Hom.

I am the Director of Substance Use Services for Behavioral Health Services.

The Department of Public Health seeks approval to extend this agreement with HealthRite 360

for withdrawal management and residential treatment services.

These programs are critical components of San Francisco's behavioral health continuum,

allowing us to serve our most vulnerable residents.

This amendment extends the term by two years from June 30, 2026 to June 30, 2028 for a total of four years.

The amendment would increase the not-to-exceed amount by $28.6 million, bringing the total contract to $38.6 million.

Just a little bit about what the services include.

So these first slides here are photos of Acceptance Place, which is located at 890 Hayes Street.

We are contracted to fund 10 beds here.

Acceptance Place is focused on providing residential services for gay, bisexual, transgender men with substance use disorders.

The average stay is approximately 30 to 90 days, but is based on medical necessity.

And in last fiscal year, they served 53 clients.

Next slide.

These next photos here are of the withdrawal management services that are provided at 815 Buena Vista.

The contract provides for 20 funded beds for clinically managed residential withdrawal management services

for adults experiencing withdrawal symptoms.

The program also provides incidental medical services.

The stays are short-term, ranging from about five to seven days,

and in fiscal year 2425, they served 793 clients.

This next slide is just a summary of the details that I just explained.

And so in closing, DPH agrees with the BLA recommendations and respectfully requests approval.

These services are essential for stabilizing individuals in crisis and supporting recovery

of LGBTQ communities.

It also allows us to fulfill our obligation to DHCS to provide an organized delivery system,

the full continuum of care.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Nick Menard from the Budget Legislative Analyst's Office.

Item three is a resolution that approves an amendment to a TPH contract with Health Right 360.

The amendment extends the agreement through June 2028 and increases the value to $38.6 million.

The agreement funds two drug treatment programs, a withdrawal management program,

and a residential drug treatment program.

we show the performance of the programs on page 5 of the report they are both

meeting the obligations of the contract and we show the budget for the contract

on page 6 this is about a 10 million dollar a year set of programs 80% of

which is funded by the general fund and we also know in our report that the bed

rates in this contract are slightly higher than DPH bed rates for similar

services and that the extension is short.

It's only about two years to allow TPH to reprocure the entire portfolio, which will

allow them to harmonize bed rates across their system of care.

We recommend approval of item three.

Thank you.

I am in support of this, but certainly I will go to public comment for now.

let's go to public comment for now 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 I want to make sure I I wouldn't claim expertise in in

sort of of this area around public health and just want to see if I share

Dorsey, what is your will on this particular contract amendment?

I do support it.

I actually know some, I know people who have benefited from these programs.

And I think, I know that there can be frustration sometimes with the amount of money that we're

spending on these, but this is ultimately about withdrawal and recovery.

And one of the good things to remember about the biggest problem that we're facing in drug

policy today, which is fentolin, is that opioid use disorder does have gold standard strategies

and medications that can really help people get on the other side of their addiction and

maintain their recovery.

Often it's the maintenance that is the problem, and I think this is the right approach.

I know that sometimes people, this does cost a lot of money.

One of the things that I would say is the alternative is more expensive.

So I'm going to support this, and I would move that we send this to the full board with

our positive recommendation.

Thank you.

I concur with the sentiment.

I think that what I do hope to continue to see is for Department of Public Health to

continue and of course I'm sure we are already and that there's clearly the federal government

is posing a challenge for us.

I would definitely want to see the Department of Public Health continue to push against

the federal government and to provide additional funding.

now is 16% of the program that is coming from the federal funding I like to see

more of that coming from our city but that's the case like across all

programming that I seek and encourage strongly encourage Department of Public

Health to seek the federal and state support and I would like to see that

continue and so with that roll call please on the motion and on that motion

by Vice Chair Dorsey that we refer this resolution to the full board with

recommendation if I share Dorsey Dorsey I remember solder solder I chair Chan I

Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes thank you mr. Clark please call

item number four yes item number four is a resolution approving the tenth

amendment to the contract between the Municipal Transportation Agency and

Texco LLC for services related to the towing storage and disposal of

of abandoned and illegally parked vehicles to increase the contract amount by $22.1 million

for a total contract amount not to exceed $158.8 million and to extend the contract term by nine

months with up to six additional one-month extensions for a potential new term of April 1,

2016 through June 30, 2027, effective upon approval of this resolution. Madam Chair.

Thank you. And today we have SFMTA here.

Good morning, Madam Chair, members of the committee.

Rob Malone, Senior Manager in the Streets Division of the SFMTA

with a responsibility over the towing contract with Tegsco.

What's before you today is a proposed 10th amendment to this contract that as noted in the intro would extend the agreement by up to 15 months and would increase the spending authority by 22.1 million to 158.8 million.

This would increase the total term from the inception to 11 years and three months, which is why we are here with you today for seeking your approval.

Next slide, please.

A quick review of the history.

Our contract with Texco began April 1st of 2016.

There was a five-year extension uptake that extended the term to its allowable maximum through March of this year.

At that time, the extension increased the contract from its original $65.4 million to $136.7 million.

Next slide, please.

Again, before you today, the 10th Amendment would extend by 15 months and $22.1 million.

Next slide, please.

To break the numbers down a bit within the 10th Amendment and a little opening the door on that total fee a little bit,

This contract with the vendor is composed of two primary components.

You know, 60, about two-thirds or a little less of the cost is within what we call the fixed management fee.

This is a fee for all sorts of things, for all the customer service staff that is provided by the vendor,

software licensing, management of the two tow yard locations,

payment processing, management of lien sales, et cetera.

This is a fixed cost.

So regardless of, or these are the monthly fixed costs

that's the same regardless of how many vehicles are towed

in a given month.

The remainder of the fees are variable fees

that are by the piece and that vary based on how many actual toes happen per month.

So to break down what's requested within the Tenth Amendment,

it's $22.1 million.

About $5.6 million of that is projected to be needed to complete the current fiscal year, 25-26.

and then the request for an additional 16.5 million that would be enough

spending authority that would allow the contract to go as far as the maximum

allowed 15 months proposed in the amendment and that gets you to the total

of 22.1 million next slide please a primary reason that we are requesting

this extension is along with a couple other areas in the agency, we, given the very challenging

budget times that we are in, there's pretty much a comprehensive review of every program

in the agency. How is it being provided? Where are there efficiencies available that we could

gain that would allow us to potentially save money while also delivering still a high value

of service.

So our strategy for that within this program was to plan for a more robust competitive solicitation

process that actually started with a request for information that was issued to the industry

in July of this past year in which the vendor community was asked for their input regarding

most efficient methods for rescoping the very detailed scope of work requirements in our

contract for their advice on the most efficient ways to trim the existing scope of work to

gain some efficiencies while still providing the best possible service we can.

Next slide, please.

We received a couple of responses to that RFI,

some good information.

We are incorporating that feedback into the development

of a request for proposals that's nearing completion.

We are planning to bring that request for proposals format

to our MTA board for their approval sometime in the early part of this year.

With the overall goal of saving 10% within that, to clarify,

within that fixed monthly fee portion, our goal is to save 10%

in that monthly portion versus what we are paying today.

That is the end of my presentation.

I'm, of course, happy to answer your questions.

Item four is a resolution that approves an amendment

to MTA's agreement with TexCo.

The amendment extends the agreement through June 2027

and then increases the value by $22.1 million to $158.8 million.

We showed the contract budget on page 15 of our report

And on page 16, we also discussed that this is one component of the towing program.

Other costs include MTA's own enforcement costs and rent for two parking lots where the vehicles that are towed are stored.

And so in fiscal year 24-25, the fee revenue did not cover the full cost of these operations.

There was a deficit of about $8.4 million driven by waivers for low-income people and for the police department.

Those net costs are funded by MTA transit revenues.

We recommended approval by the 4.

Thank you.

Supervisor Saura.

Thank you, Chair.

Just a couple quick questions on this.

So, Tegsco, they are operating the facilities.

Are they doing any of the towing or what role do they play in terms of actually the tow trucks?

Sure, thank you.

Tegsco is an overall management company.

So, Tegsco operates both the impound yard on Bayshore Boulevard and the short-term stores location on 7th Street in the city.

city, but they are just management and have all the kind of operational staff, customer

service staff. All of the actual towing is done by subcontractors.

And in terms of those contracts that we have with those companies, are you going through

a similar RFI process or do you anticipate going through a similar RFI process with those

companies?

specific to the tow subs themselves that frankly we hadn't but we certainly can do some outreach

with them directly and then just kind of thinking ahead in terms of some of the options that

came out in this RFI for reducing costs do you do you foresee the consolidation of two facilities

to one being feasible?

I think it would be a significant challenge,

but we have been asked to at least do the cost-benefit feasibility on that.

So it's potentially feasible,

but has some really significant challenges to it.

And then one last question.

I know it kind of gets into a different topic,

but one of the other suggestions,

limiting the number of times someone can receive a low-income discount.

Do you have a sense of how often that's happening?

I mean, I think, are people doing this five, ten times?

Is there truly no cap to that program?

There is truly no cap right now.

We absolutely have done deep dives on that data.

And there are, you know, it's not a huge number percentage-wise of people that are exercising

those waivers multiple times, but they're absolutely, you know, and clear, we tow around

40,000 vehicles a year, and to, I apologize on the exact numbers, but let's say we issued,

you know, 10,000 of those waivers last year, which probably in the ballpark, you know,

there's a couple hundred folks in there who have exercised that waiver six, eight, ten times.

So we are looking at it and in coordination with our partners at the police department as well to look at the pros and cons of potentially limiting that.

Because there's some significant concern from police and also SFMTA enforcement about that the way it is right now, it's kind of there's a perverse incentive for folks.

and both they, those law enforcement folks, and we get feedback from other stakeholders

with concern about why do I see this same vehicle, it's gone and then it's back,

it's gone and then it's back, and then it's gone and then it's back.

So our goal is to just analyze how much financial impact there would be to potential alterations of that,

whether it's a limit of one or two or what have you.

It could be different things.

at the moment we're just in the stage of analyzing what we think as the program staff the financial

impact would be and others are weighing in again with the MTA leadership regarding the policy and

political implications of different options. Very good. Thank you. You're welcome. Thank you. And I

building on top of what Supervisor Sauter was indicating, you know, I think here in the

in the BLA report indicated there's a significant increase of towing for unlicensed and suspended

vehicles in here, in this chart, it's a 112 percent increase. I'm also just trying to understand

and how this actually related to the most recent passage of the RV,

like over large size or RV vehicle tow policy with the two hours.

How has that been in terms of from SFMTA with this contractor

and then also in coordination with Department of Homeless and Citizens

in support of housing, enforcement, and towing.

Sure.

So I'll be happy to answer the portion of your question that I have direct knowledge of,

just so Madam Chair and members are aware.

I do have a colleague here from Department of Emergency Management

who's actually managing that overall program that we are helping to implement.

If you happen to have any broader questions, he said he'd be happy to answer them.

The impact on the towing vendor and this contract that we're here today has been, you know, somewhat significant in implementing this new policy.

And just to clarify, it's not just when we say the large vehicle program, there's the large vehicle program.

And when you say that, when I hear that, I hear the permit program where folks working with those other agencies that you mentioned have been issued these permits so that they can stay on the street until they potentially accept housing.

There's another element of this new ordinance, which is actually just enforcing the two-hour parking restriction for large vehicles for anyone.

and there's you know impacts on on towing of both of those things and I would say to date

the larger impact has actually been from just enforcing the tour hour restriction

across the city at all so it has resources have been you know had to be rejiggered a little bit

in terms of you know i i don't speak on behalf of sfmta and enforcement staff however i'm aware

that they've had to do some little bit of um reprioritizing of their staff and and how it's

being deployed day to day because we're part of the team who is implementing this very high priority

program of the mayors so it's being handled within the typical day-to-day operation of the program

starting from how mta enforcement is being deployed but then our vendor of course as they do

every day they just implement toes that are requested by law enforcement either pcos or

all our vendor is doing is just you know towing vehicles that have either been cited or on those

few vehicles to date, I think it's only been, you know, it's been around 10 or so, and it's ramping

up, vehicles of folks within that permit program who have agreed to relinquish their vehicle when

they accept housing. Yeah, I guess let me ask more specifically about the towing of the RVs or large

vehicle, is that I totally understand there's a permitting process going on and still underway,

but simultaneously there's the enforcement,

and I think that specifically asking about the enforcement related to towing,

not necessarily just citation,

has with the passage of large vehicle enforcement,

towing enforcement or allowable tow,

So have you seen an increase of large vehicle towing under the new passage of law?

Yes.

And how significant is that?

It's ramped up.

I don't have the exact numbers off the top of my head, but it has ramped up significantly.

We'd be happy to follow back up with you and share the incremental data of that.

Yeah.

I want to parse out.

Today's question is not a contracting question from this body.

That's clearly what I'm asking is a towing policy question.

So on a contract itself, I am supportive of extending it for another 15 months

so that you can complete the request for proposal process

so that there's a competitive bidding process that we have agreed

that it's time, it's almost 10 years of a contract

with this existing contractor.

It is time for SFMTA to go through

the competitive bidding process.

So I can understand require another 15 months

and require an extension.

And I appreciate the fixed rates management fee

to kind of keep the costs consistent

for the next 15 months.

I appreciate.

So the contract itself, I have no problem with.

I think that today I would love,

between this time to as we potentially if this pass out of this body to full bore.

I would like to understand, have a better understanding about similarly the projection of actual tolls.

There is not such a category here in the BLA report,

but I would like to understand the large vehicle toll that was actual,

similarly to the category in the BLA report of page 17.

is that there's a category for actual 24, 25,

and then a projection for 25, 26, or year to date, I should say,

and then also the projection.

So that kind of helps us understand what is the change of toll

for the RV or large vehicle.

With that, thank you.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, members of the public, I wish to address this committee regarding this item number

four.

Now is your opportunity.

Good morning, Supervisors.

Eliana Binder with Glide and then Poverty Toes Coalition.

I understand this is an extension and not the upcoming new RFP for the towing contract,

But I wanted to lay out some of the broader concerns with SFMTA's towing contract and

the fact that the MTA loses money on the towing program overall.

In part due to this towing contract, San Francisco has some of the highest towing costs in the

country starting at $675 within the first four hours and quickly rising to over $1,000 after

several days.

The MTA could save money on towing if it deprioritized poverty tows, such as tows for vehicles parked

in the same spot for 72 or more hours and for expired registration.

Tows for expired registration were among the third most common reason for tows last fiscal year.

Low-income people, including those who live in their vehicles and large vehicles,

face challenges in paying off tickets and paying for registration

and are therefore more likely to face registration tows.

Even with the towing discount, sometimes people cannot pay the fees to recover their vehicle.

And as the BLA report states, SFMTA pays these fees to the vendor for every tow performed,

regardless of whether the agency collects revenue from the vehicle owner.

Therefore, the SFMTA is likely to lose money on poverty tows, like for expired registration.

When it comes to other ways to save costs in the upcoming RFP, the SFMTA should reduce

their program costs and consolidate from two storage facilities to one.

The other potential strategies, including eliminating discounts, increasing fees, or reducing customer service, would be harmful to low-income people and all customers.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Eliana Binder.

Next speaker, please.

Hi.

I'm Flo Kelly, and I work with the End Poverty Toes with Eliana, who just spoke.

The BLA's report cites one of many cost-saving strategies

to eliminate or reduce fee waivers

and lower fees for towing low-income residents.

This is not a good idea.

Those lowering of fees is very important.

If we have way too many neighbors who are homeless,

We will only have even more if SF doesn't honor the waivers and reduce rates of the towing of people's homes or the towing of cars that people need to get to their jobs and work their way out of homelessness.

Our elected San Francisco treasurer instituted the Financial Justice Project.

Staff from that project worked with the community,

represented by Stop Poverty Toes with about 80 nonprofits throughout the city.

We met with staff of SFMTA to work toward a system of waivers and fees that could work.

There is way too much towing of vehicles now.

people get that the city bans RVs.

There is not a path for people to get permits now

if they don't have them,

even though they were here in March of 2025.

It feels like San Francisco is taking a playbook

directly from our king.

If you need a hand up, the city gives you a push down.

And success is measured by not seeing poverty

A recommendation I do like is that to combine the two lots, even though it might be a headache,

a person can then deal with finances and fees and pick up their vehicle no matter the size of the vehicle.

Thank you, Flo Kelly, for addressing this committee.

And with no other speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our cue.

Seeing no more Public Commons.

Public Commons is now closed.

clearly we have some work to do around

poverty toll policy as well as just helping us

understand the status and as well as

the percentage both in actuals and projection

help us understand the large vehicle

toll in this case

but I think today colleagues I am

in support of making sure that SFMTA can continue the process of working on a

competitive bidding process for this contract and one of the ways to do it is

to really to extend this by 15 months and so I will make a motion to move to

full board with recommendation and a roll call please and on that motion to

refer this resolution to the full board with a recommendation

Vice-Chair Dorsey Dorsey I remember Sauter I saw her I chair Chan I

Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes and Mr. Clerk please call items

five through seven together yes item numbers five through seven our

resolutions authorizing the recreation and Park Department to accept and

expand grants for the following entities amounts and terms for the India Basin

and Shoreline Park Project and Redevelopment Project, and to enter into modifications and

amendments to the grant agreements that do not materially increase the obligations nor

liabilities to the City and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the respective

agreements or resolutions.

Item number 5 is in the amount of $1.15 million from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority

Measure AA grant to enter into the associated grant agreement as required by the Charter

that requires the continued operation of the property for public recreation for a period of 20 years upon project completion.

Item number six retroactively accepts and expends a grant in the amount of $2 million

from the United States Environmental Protection Agency for the Brownfield Cleanup Program

to support environmental remediation and park redevelopment at India Basin Shoreline Park

for a term of October 1, 2025 to the estimated end date of October 31, 2029

and approving the associated grant agreement.

And item number seven is for a grant increase in the amount of approximately $3 million

for a total grant amount of approximately $8.6 million from California State Coastal Conservancy

and approving an amendment to the existing grant agreement to require a contract performance period

that will remain in effect through December 31st, 2048.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have Rec and Park Department here.

Good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisors Slaughter and Dorsey.

My name is Caitlin Hall, and I am the Partnerships and Capital Associate

with the Recreation and Parks Department.

I'm here to present the legislation for the three grants that were just listed

that have been awarded to the city to help fund the India Basin Shoreline Park Project.

The first item is to accept and expend a grant in the amount of $1,150,000

from the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Measure AA grant

for the India Basin Shoreline Park Project

and to ask for your recommendation that the Board of Supervisors approves the grant agreement

requiring the city and county to maintain the open space for public recreational use for a period of 20 years upon completion

and to authorize the department to enter into modifications and amendments to the grant agreement

that do not materially increase the obligations of liabilities to the city.

I would like to note that this grant is now considered retroactive because the grant agreement was signed on December 18, 2025, but no funds have been expended to date.

So with that, I have a few amendments to the legislation on file.

So on page one, line one, adding the word retroactive, and then on line three, adding retroactively.

And then on page two, line 14, removing the phrase substantially in the form of the example contract, because we now have an official contract.

and then on line 20 adding the word retroactively

and then on page 3 striking the language

starting on line 5 that says

and be it through line 8 to strike that language

so an update on the legislation

so a bit of background

the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority

was established in 2008 by the San Francisco Bay Restoration Authority Act as a regional entity

to generate and allocate resources for the protection and enhancement of tidal wetlands

and wildlife habitat along the San Francisco Bay shoreline.

The San Francisco Bay Clean Water Pollution Prevention and Habitat Restoration Measure,

also known as Measure AA, passed in 2016 and authorized the authority to collect a special parcel tax

that is expected to raise approximately $25 million annually for the next 20 years.

India Basin Shoreline Park was awarded $1,150,000 to support the third phase of the India Basin Waterfront Initiative,

which will serve the adjacent economically underserved community of Bayview-Hunters Point

by providing new shoreline access, enhancing the existing shoreline, reducing bay water pollution

by supporting the new bioretention infrastructure, and creating new bay water trail access.

The India Basin Waterfront Initiative completed phases one and two of the three-phase project

through the 900-innis remediation and park construction that were completed in October of 2024.

And the Phase III groundbreaking took place on August 19, 2025,

with a project completion anticipated in early 2028.

So these particular grant funds will pay for shoreline work

that will take place towards the end of the project within Phase III, most likely in 2027.

so that concludes the first part of my presentation so I'm respectfully asking

the budget and Finance Committee to recommend that the Board of Supervisors

adopt this resolution and I'd be happy to answer any questions thank you I I

think that these are long-term agreements with the grants funding 20

years and more for one of them.

And would love to see, if possible, not today,

but really on the record, that we can provide, again,

the breakdown of funding for the entire project

and scope the work.

I think that that's part of the RRPR,

the rec and part memo that is included here,

and then also the grant budget.

But we'd love to have also photos of before and after.

I think that's like, it would be great to go inside

with sort of like the scope of work

and a little bit of before

and scope the work of like,

once we have the project that's been ongoing

and what does that look like,

it would be really helpful, I think,

to help those general public

to kind of see the investments

along with these grant funding comes with

and what that looks like, especially before and after.

I think for someone that we have or I have visited before

and to see what has the progress that it's been making, it's amazing.

So I think we should have those on the record.

We look forward to seeing those before February 3rd.

If you have them that we can include on the legislative file.

Okay, will do. Thank you.

I don't have any other questions, and let's go to public comment on this item.

Madam Chair, did you wish to get the presentation on 6 and 7 and hold public comment?

Sorry.

Yeah, I have two other items, but should I just go through one by one?

Please.

Yes.

So the second item I have on the agenda is to retroactively accept and expend a grant

in the amount of $2 million from the United States Environmental Protection Agency

for the Brownfield cleanup program to support environmental remediation

and park redevelopment at India Basin Shoreline Park

for a term of October 1st, 2025, through an estimated date of October 31st, 2029.

And to ask for your recommendation for the Board of Supervisors

to approve the associated grant agreement

and to authorize the Recreation and Park Department acting in consultation with the city attorney

to enter into modifications and amendments to the grant agreement

that do not materially increase the obligations of liabilities to the city.

And just to note, India-based in Charlene Park was awarded $2 million in funding from the EPA

for the fiscal year 2025 Brownfield Cleanup Grant on May 15, 2025,

this grant is considered retroactive as I mentioned because the grant contract

period began on October 1st 2025 but no funds have been expended to date and

these funds will be used in the coming months for remediation at India Basin

Shoreline Park so this concludes item 6 should I move on to ideas and then

And finally, I'm presenting a resolution to accept and expend a grant increase in the

amount of $3,091,148 for a total amount of $8,591,148 from the California State Coastal

Conservancy for India Basin, Shoreline Park, and ask for your recommendation that the Board

of Supervisors approves an amendment to the existing grant agreement that requires extending

the grant performance period through December 31st, 2048. So a bit of background. On September 3rd,

2024, the Board of Supervisors adopted Resolution Number 449-24, authorizing the Recreation and

Park Department to accept and expend a grant from the California State Coastal Conservancy

in the amount of $5,500,000 for the India Basin Shoreline Park Redevelopment Project

and approved the associated grant agreement with a grant performance period of September 24, 2024

through December 31, 2027, which is on file with the Clerk of the Board under file number

240679. On September 18th, 2025, the State Coastal Conservancy Board approved a grant increase

of up to $3,091,148 to the Recreation and Park Department to augment the previous $5,500,000

grant for the project. These funds will be used to support features that provide access to the bay,

including the addition of a gravel beach, boathouse, and floating dock.

So that concludes the third and final part of my presentation.

So I'm respectfully asking the Budget and Finance Committee

to recommend that the Board of Supervisors adopt these resolutions,

and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

My request for photos is for all three.

Got it.

Thank you.

And so with that, let's go to public comment on these three items.

Yes, we are opening public comment for the all three items five through seven 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 first like to amend the item number five as requested by the department inserting

retroactive and

indicating that this resolution is retroactive

including language like retroactive and retroactively

authorizing the accept and expand of this grant

and also cross out on any reference

on page 2 and page 3

indicating that the contract has yet

to be executed so with that motion to amend item number five and then and then

to move all three items included the amended item to full board with

recommendation and a roll call please and on that motion to accept the

amendments to the resolution and item number five as so stated and to refer

these resolutions to the full board with the recommendation with number five with

item five as amended vice-chair Dorsey Dorsey I remember Sauter Sauter I

church and I Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes thank you thank you

and sure Clark please call item number eight yes item number eight is a

resolution approving the award of professional services agreement for

program advisory services related to the waterfront resilience program between jacobs engineering core

inc and the city and county acting by and through its port commission in an amount not to exceed 40

million for a term of five years commencing on march 2nd 2026 through march 1st 2031 with a

single option to extend for five additional years exercisable at the sole discretion of the port

Commission pursuant to the Charter. Madam Chair. Thank you and today we have San Francisco Port here.

Good afternoon Chair Chan, committee members. Brad Benson, I'm the Port of San Francisco's

Waterfront Resilience Program Director. I appreciate the opportunity to address you today

on this important contract that really is foundational to the Waterfront Resilience Program.

As you've heard, it's a $40 million five-year program advisory services contract.

We're proposing an award to Jacobs Engineering.

They are also the incumbent coming off of a prior predecessor contract with the port.

The major work that is going on in the program right now is a flood study with the Army Corps of Engineers

that started in 2018 with a new start that our congressional district helped us get.

This is really the means by which the Army Corps of Engineers determines whether or not

there's a federal interest in dealing with local flood problems.

It's a highly technical study.

It started as a three-year, $3 million study, but under core direction, it has grown to

a $19.2 million, 8.2 year study that we expect will end this year.

Through that effort, we've analyzed flood risk to the shoreline along port property.

We've looked at sort of damages projected through coastal storm events over a hundred

year period of analysis.

And through a planning process with city departments and the community, we've developed

a recommended plan of coastal flood defenses, which I'll show in just a moment.

The cost estimate for that plan in 2024 was $13.5 billion.

If the Army Corps recommends that plan to Congress and Congress authorizes the project,

that opens the city to a path of up to 65% federal funding with a 35% cost share.

So where we are right now with the study is going through final policy review with Army Corps headquarters.

We expect a chief's report to Congress around about May or June of this year

and expect the Water Resources Development Act to be adopted by Congress in late 2026.

And that's where Congress authorizes studies like this.

So briefly, I mentioned that recommended plan.

This is a system of coastal flood defenses that would raise the shoreline along port property

to address between a foot and a half and three and a half feet of sea level rise.

It would adapt historic buildings that intersect the shoreline.

It would provide the city with a new way of handling stormwater.

It includes more than three miles of engineering with nature features.

We've also signed an agreement with the Corps that will allow the city to lead design of this plan because of our knowledge about city infrastructure systems and urban design in the city.

We're planning two additional contracts that we would bring back to the board for your consideration that together are over $100 million to advance design of that effort.

We're going to need to choose a location to start implementation of a plan this large.

We can't build it all at once, so we're going to have to build it in pieces.

These pictures are showing the king tides that happened in early January.

So this really is the low point along the Embarcadero where we have BART, Muni,

that underground Muni system rising up to the surface exposed to flood risk today.

So the water level here was about 8.8 feet North American vertical data,

and you can see it's overtopping the shoreline.

We've had events like this.

We've also had big storm events with large waves.

We haven't had the intersection of the two yet,

but if we did, we would have serious flooding in this area of the waterfront.

So just turning to the contract, this is providing a suite of services,

program management services, standing up a large infrastructure project like this.

We have some skills at the port, but we need outside expertise to undertake standing up a program like this.

This would provide environmental support for CEQA and permitting.

Army Corps support services.

It's a very technical agency to work with, so having folks who come from the Corps

and have that history of working with the Corps will help us.

planning, design, and engineering, technical services,

communications support so that we can have robust public outreach

and engagement as we advance design,

as well as finance and legislative support,

workforce development, and small business support.

Finally, real estate and maritime services.

So that's the general scope.

We had a very robust competitive solicitation process.

We had broad outreach to LBEs in the city.

We had two pre-proposer conferences.

We actually extended the proposal due date to give people more time to respond to a big contract like this.

We only got one proposal at the end of the day, and we'll talk about that, I'm sure, in the back and forth.

We have a highly qualified firm with 26% LBE participation across 39 consultants.

So about Jacobs, we did a complete review of their qualifications.

They have excellent experience across environmental permitting, funding, legislative support,

just beyond the typical program management and engineering services that you might expect from a company like this.

They've obviously worked with us over the past six years, seven years in the program.

So they have a deep understanding of the problems that we're addressing, as well as relationships

with our city partners, the Army Corps staff that we've been working with.

So they've also demonstrated a commitment to diversity with this 26.6% LBE participation

rate, which exceeded the CMD requirement.

So in closing, I just, I know the budget analyst is going to testify and had a

recommendation about doing sort of post-work evaluation and that's

something that we've done in the program primarily with our engineering work.

We've done the lessons learned and documented how we could work better

together. We accept the budget analyst recommendation and want to extend that

practice to all elements of the program we think it's just good government so

I'll stop there and I'm available to answer any questions when you have them

item 8 is a resolution that approves a new contract between the port and

Jacobs engineering the value is 40 million dollars and the contract has a

term of five years with one to five year option to extend the 40 million dollars

is really sized for that initial five-year term and so if the contract is

extended they will the port would likely have to come back to the board to get

approval for additional spending authority this is for program management

services for the waterfront resilient program it's a capital program to

improve infrastructure along the waterfront and that will ultimately

result in up to 15 billion dollars of spending to improve the seawall along

the waterfront and make that infrastructure resilient to rising sea levels.

We show the contract budget on page 23 of the report.

This contract is primarily funded by 2018 general obligation bonds for the sea, for

seawall projects.

And we also note in our report that the port right now does not have a policy or practice

of evaluating its contractors.

We think that they should adopt one.

We sent them, but the PUC has because we think it's good.

they embark on a $15 billion infrastructure project, they should really be incorporating

those best practices. But otherwise, we recommend approval of item 8.

Thank you. Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you. Just a quick question for the board. I think you noted 90 attendees to the

workshops and then just one proposal. Is that common or is there something, you know, that

scared off those other 89 from submitting a proposal?

It's a good question.

We certainly are hoping when we do these competitive solicitations that we have robust competition.

I think what may have hindered competition in this case is those other design contracts that I mentioned.

We had been to our commission sort of advertising that we were going to go out for design services to advance the recommended plan through design.

and there are important state conflict of interest provisions.

The California Government Code, Section 1090, I believe,

sets forth conflict of interest rules for consultant efforts like this.

There are a couple of principles at play there.

One is that you shouldn't write your own scope of services.

That's sort of like writing your own paycheck in the future.

and you also cannot review your own work,

either from a design review perspective or a cost perspective

because you lack the sort of distance to do a fair review.

And that's a lot of what the program advisory contract is going to help us do,

is independent design review of the work coming out of other design contracts in the program

and independent cost estimating.

So there's a good reason that these companies decided to potentially opt out waiting for these other contracting options.

And then in terms of the BLA recommendation on an evaluation method, is that something you'll consider?

Yes, we accept that recommendation.

As I mentioned earlier, we've been doing that with respect to the engineering work in our prior contract,

but we have not had, as the budget analyst stated, you know, a program-wide policy,

and we're going to adopt one so that it applies to all elements of the contract.

Thank you.

I have a question.

I just kind of wanted to understand the contractor in this, the selected contractor,

particularly if you could name either a project that they have worked on,

specifically that includes sort of a technical assistance.

In this case, they're providing the technical assistance for us

so that we can secure $10 billion of funding from the federal government,

in this case through the U.S. Army Corps.

And I am pleased to see that is part of the service that they will be providing.

But could you just kind of walk us through if they actually have done similar,

providing similar service to other municipalities? Sure. You know, one example program that they

managed was the City of Seattle waterfront projects. I don't know if you're familiar with

that effort. It was not an Army Corps effort. I want to be clear that Seattle pursued Army Corps

assistance but didn't get it. But the Jacobs team-led program delivery of that set of projects,

which is largely complete now and it's the kind of you know waterfront

investment in transportation that we would aspire to through this program

great thank you I don't have any other questions let's go pop a comment on this

item yes if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee

regarding this item number eight now is your opportunity madam chair we have no

speakers seeing no public comments public comment is now closed colleagues I

would like to oh I should say supervisor Sauter what is your will on this item

it's particularly this in your district thank you I'd like to send this item to

the full board with recommendation roll call please and on that motion by

member Sauter then we refer this resolution to the full board with

with recommendation vice-chair Dorsey Dorsey I member Sauter Sauter aye

Cho Chan I Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes

Amster clerk please call item number nine item number nine is a resolution approving an emergency

Declaration of the port pursuant to the administrative code to provide immediate emergency repairs to stabilize dry dock number two at pier

68 for a total estimated not to exceed cost of 10 million and adopting environmental findings madam chair

Thank you

please go ahead okay good morning supervisors my name is Megan Wallace I'm

the interim deputy director of finance and administration at the port of San

Francisco today port staff is here to request approval to proceed with an

emergency contract to stabilize our dry dock number two located at pier 68 in

our southern waterfront for some context staff will be returning for a future

item seeking approval of a supplemental appropriation. So to begin to give you a

little bit of background, the port owns two dry docks located at Pier 68. The

first, more to the right of your screen, it's more eastward within the bay, is

dry dock number two. This is a 55 year old single section steel floating dry

dock, 900 feet, so actually for your interest it's actually longer than the

ferry building. It's intended to hold cruise ships and military vessels all

needing repair. The Eureka to the left is a much smaller vessel as well, but it is

part of the larger story about what the port is trying to accomplish at Pier 68.

So previously the port had a shipyard operator named BAE,

which unfortunately abandoned the shipyard in 2017.

And since that time, the port has been working diligently,

working in an attempt to find a new shipyard operator,

try to sell the vessels, but ultimately to no avail.

We have not been able to find an alternative than to move forward with disposal,

removal and disposal of these vessels.

And in 2024, the board, sorry,

the port commission authorized the port

to move forward with a supplemental appropriation

of $18.5 million, at which time staff began engaging

with consultants, developing cost estimates

and options for how to move forward

with disposal of these vessels.

Unfortunately, before we've been able to proceed

with removal in November of 2025.

San Francisco was hit with significant storm

and dry dock number two began to take on water.

And you can see in this image

that the vessel was actually listing.

So that's part of that taking on the water

and beginning to sink.

And did trigger our port director

to ultimately declare an emergency,

at which time staff began engaging

with the Department of Public Works

to identify an approach for seeking an emergency contractor

to be able to manage just stabilizing the dry dock

as a beginning.

This is just some more imagery of just the deterioration

of dry dock number two, how it's taking on water

and how the port has begun to run pumps into it.

They're actually running 24 seven

and require ongoing monitoring by staff.

So now with the Department of Public Works support, the port has moved forward with the

work to stabilize.

We've actually, under our emergency declaration, have already issued a notice to proceed, but

within the city requirements, we're now seeking the Board of Supervisors formal approval.

And so we're currently engaged in construction phase 1A of dry dock number 2, doing our

emergency stabilization the contract work is 8.1 million with 500,000 for the

Department of Public Works so that's the 8.6 million that you see in this first

phase of work additionally we have 1.8 million built into the emergency

contract for our contingency but the overall picture I'm showing here is

ultimately to take us through the removal and disposal of both dry docks and so to

that end that is where we're starting to also move forward with funding as I

mentioned there's a separate ordinance seeking that appropriation the 18.5

million in addition to 1.5 million that the port already has in hand will allow

us to move forward with 20 million potentially of initial work for this

particular contract we've identified 10 million of short-term funds that upon

approval of the supplemental appropriation staff will move the

expenses to those newly appropriated funds and return our short-term funding

for original uses such as parks and open space improvements in the southern

waterfront for example so ultimately we are looking to pull together 61.2

million dollars to complete all of this work our proposed budget for fiscal year

2627 we anticipate will include an additional 41.2 million dollars so in

closing we are seeking your approval of this emergency contract and I do want to

note that I have colleagues here to help me answer any questions but also I would

like you know to actually propose non-substitutive amendments to our

resolution per the suggestions of the controller's office so supervisors

copies of the amendments were circulated to your offices by the clerk's office so

if I may read into the record the specific amendments so beginning on page

2 line 22 we added two whereas clauses that read whereas on December 16 2025

the port introduced ordinance 25-1248 to appropriate 18 million five hundred

thousand dollars fund balance from the Port Harbor fund to fund emergency

repair work and prepare for removal and disposal of dry dock number two and

whereas emergency work must be performed prior to approval of ordinance 25-1248

requiring the port to identify funds that will be used in the short term and

restored upon availability of the newly appropriated funds to serve their

original purpose and and from there we also added fund ID tables on page 3

detailing the sources of the 10 million dollars and signature lines for the

controller and our own department head we respectfully request your support and

the amended resolution thank you thank you item 9 would approve an emergency

declaration from the port related to their repairs they need to do for one

of their dry docks this is not a contract approval and it's not an

appropriation what this emergency declaration does is that it allows the

port to suspend contracting requirements in chapter six of the administrative

code and then other social policy requirements in chapters 12 and 14 that

would typically follow a city contract to speed up the contracting process the

port got quotes from three different vendors they selected one power

engineering construction company to perform this emergency work and you can

see the project budget on page 31 of our report there's an initial ten million

dollars of emergency work that needs to be done to stabilize the dry dock but

then there's a larger 62 million dollar project to dispose of this and then

another dry dock that the port has that they have not been able to find a tenant

for this money is being funded by the port harbor fund it's money that would

otherwise be used for maintenance projects along the waterfront but I

think this is a genuine emergency and I recommend approval of this item 9

Thank you. I don't have additional question. I appreciate that you are evaluating, according to the budget and legislative analyst report, you're evaluating whether any state or federal funding may be available to offset the cost. I appreciate that effort. And let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment for this item. Number nine, 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 first accept the amendments proposed by San Francisco Port

as read out loud into the record by W. Director Wallace

and move the amended item to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to amend this item number nine as so offered by the department and written to the record

And that we refer this resolution to the full board with the recommendation as amended

Vice chair Dorsey Dorsey. I remember Sauter

Sauter I chair Chan I Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes

Thank you. And mr. Clerk, please call item number 10

Item number 10 is a resolution establishing the San Francisco Downtown Revitalization and Economic Recovery Financing District, approving the Downtown Revitalization Financing Plan, including the Division of Taxes set forth therein, and documents and actions related thereto in authorizing the filing of a judicial validation action.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So in a meeting that has seen a lot of items where I feel like I've held my nose and voted for things just because we don't want to not spend the money, this is one I'm actually really excited about.

Because I'm a member of the Downtown Revitalization Financing District.

I have heard this item a couple of times now, and I am an enthusiastic supporter of this plan.

This is an approach that, in my view, helps to fulfill a vision for 21st century urbanism

that reimagines downtown as a reinvigorated and thriving neighborhood,

one that is mixed use and mixed income with more residents, more commuters, more shoppers,

more visitors, and more amenities to serve them.

In many ways, what excites me most about the downtown revitalization and economic recovery

financing district and its financing plan is that it gives us a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to

correct 20th century land use decisions that contemplated nine-to-five neighborhoods and

bring them into the 21st century as vibrant 24-7 neighborhoods. I am committed to using every tool

we have as a policymaker to support these projects, and this is a key tool to make these projects

feasible. I want to thank OEWD staff and their and their team for work on this.

I'd also like to thank members of the labor community who have expressed

support and some of whom are here today and I look forward to moving this item

forward. Thank you and let's start with the presentation from Office of Economic

and Workforce Development. Thank you Chair Chan. Good morning Supervisors.

Jacob Bentliff with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Thank you, Supervisor Dorsey for those remarks.

And actually, I'd like to start the presentation by reminding us

on a similar vein of the larger policy goals that we are trying

to achieve with this program as well as others we have pursued

in the past couple of years, the primary one being,

as Supervisor Dorsey alluded to, creating a 24-7 mixed use downtown

that is not just about the 9 to 5 that would then, of course,

increase foot traffic for our local businesses who have really borne the brunt

of this office vacancy that we've had since the pandemic.

This also means more riders for BART and Muni

and our other transit operators in the downtown area.

Also, of course, it means there's more people on the street,

more eyes on the street.

It's a safer environment, a more active environment

for our streets, sidewalks, open spaces,

especially in the evening time.

All of this makes our downtown more resilient

for the next downturn, whatever that looks like.

Getting away from being so reliant on one use in this area

that would help us to avoid the situation we find ourselves in now after the pandemic.

This all would ultimately help contribute to shoring up our city's long-term tax base as well

by shoring up the value of the office market itself,

by taking some of the vacant underutilized office out of the market,

by overall reinvigorating downtown.

It's going to shore up the base value of all the properties throughout downtown

in the long term for the city.

And of course, that's all about downtown revitalization.

There's a twin goal of the city that is being served here,

which is of course creating housing as well so this would help contribute to

our housing goals so specifically today we are here to you're here to consider a

resolution to approve the financing plan for a downtown revitalization financing

district this is a new tool from the state that was enabled by AB 2488 that

came into effect at the beginning of last year it allows San Francisco to

create one such district within the boundaries that you see on this map it

allows that the key provision here is that we would use future property tax increment,

so the growth in assessed value over time from a certain number of conversion projects that opt

into this program to provide an incentive payment to those projects over the course of 30 years to

help compensate for the development cost of the project. The state law does have a sunset. Projects

need to enroll in this program by the end of 2032, so that's about seven years from setting up the

program and it is governed by a separate district board board of directors and I

want to thank supervisors Dorsey and Satter for their service on that board

as well as for their co-sponsorship on the item today we shared with you when

we were back here in May to begin this process the estimates that we had about

the impact of this program in downtown our consultant analysis from Bay Area

Economics identified 1300 parcels that would be eligible with 48 buildings that

would be likely candidates for conversion based on their vacancy their

size and their age and so forth this could account for about 4400 new units

in the downtown or around 7,000 new residents in our downtown if all those

48 projects were to convert under the program to put this in context as far as

the process and there is a rigorous process that we have been going through

to set this up we were last here at this committee in May of last year for the

board to adopt the resolution of intention which it did in June that

started this process there was also an ordinance that created that district

board which then began meeting in September and held their initial meeting

where they directed a wd to develop the financing plan that is before you today

that financing plan was heard in draft form at a public hearing in October of

the district board the final version of that plan was heard by the district

board and approved in their December meeting. Now we're here at the Board of

Supervisors for this final step from the Board of Supervisors to approve this

resolution. If so then we would have a final public hearing of the district

board currently scheduled for mid-February to adopt and establish this

program and then we'd be ready to start receiving applications. So we're getting

very close. The financing plan has a number of components. I'm going to try to

go through the the key ones here so it does set forth the district goals which

I alluded to makes findings that the city does find that these conversions

are of community-wide significance and consistent with the general plan

importantly it establishes this boundary this maximum boundary that we're allowed

to do under state law which as you can see includes the financial district

Union Square mid-market Civic Center as well as parts of Soma east of 6th Street

in the central Soma area and East cut Rincon areas the eligible projects

under the state law and financing plan have to be located in a district that

allows for residential and mixed-use housing the projects need to be at least

60% residential the financing plan has is making a choice to exclude projects

that are located within current and former redevelopment areas this is

because it would be very difficult to manage the apportionment of the

increment going to the redevelopment areas versus to this program so those

have been taken out and also the financing plan specifies that the tax

benefit would only be proportional to the amount of the project that actually

was converted from commercial to residential so if you built if you

converted the building and then added additional floor area for net new

residential that portion would not get the tax benefit it's only to subsidize

the conversion the financing plan also codifies the state's affordability

requirements under this program which are that the projects after the first 1.5

million square feet of projects to enroll would be required to provide a

a minimum amount of on-site affordable housing which would be five percent very low or ten

percent low-income units for a rental project or ten percent moderate income for a for sale project

the financing plan also specifies that the local inclusionary housing requirements would apply

when they're higher as you recall we have waived the impact fee and inclusionary requirements for

projects for conversion projects in the c3 districts so that's most of this area but there

are other areas of this district that are not in that zoning district where the local inclusionary

requirements would apply because they're currently higher than these numbers

also the plan specifies as far as any dwelling unit removal which would be pretty much inconceivable

considering that we're talking about commercial projects converting but that it makes clear that

any such dwelling unit removal would have to follow all the city's policies around removal

The financing plan also codifies the state law labor standards for these projects, which are that they all must pay prevailing wages.

Projects of more than 50 units need to employ workers with registered apprentice programs and provide for health care benefits.

Projects involving a building of more than 85 feet in height would use skilled and trained union labor for the project as well.

the financing plan but really the one of the key components is to identify the

amount and use of the tax increment that we're talking about here so it is using

the full share of the city's share of the property tax that we're allowed to

use under the state law so we're maximizing the incentive payment that

we're allowed to under state law this means that of the incremental value of

the project the city's base tax is one percent the city keeps 65 percent of that that's the portion

that would be used as an incentive payment over 30 years to the projects the financing plan is

not including revenue from what is known as the property tax in lieu vehicle license fee program

which is a lump sum payment that the city receives from the state every year that is based on property

tax but is very difficult to apportion to any one project so that's been excluded which means there

would be additional revenue flowing to the general fund due to that.

Financing plan lets us keep 5% for administrative costs, and it also includes a projection of

a maximum of $610 million over 30 years, over the 45 years of the program that could go

out, and then there's a hard limit of double that to allow for if there are more projects

that come in or if assessed value grows by more than we projected.

The financing plan also includes a fiscal impact analysis, which was a requirement of

state law.

This was prepared for us by BAE, who also did the initial projections for the program.

The analysis finds, firstly, that if all 48 of these projects that we thought were likely

do enter the program before the deadline, it would generate $1.6 million in today's dollars

of general fund revenue coming in.

In addition, to look at the net fiscal impact, BAE estimated a range of a negative $8.2 million

to a positive $500,000 per year if all the projects opt in.

The reason for that range is depending on how you estimate the service cost per person

in these buildings.

So using the traditional fiscal impact analysis methodology that the state requires, that's

what generates the negative number.

That assumes that you're going to spend the same amount for every one of these residents

that you would spend for a unit that was built somewhere that there was never a service population

that was ever served before. That's not the case in our downtown where we have a built out,

well-served area of the city that has had significant population decline since COVID.

So we're now backfilling that population. We had VAE run an adaptive reuse analysis of this that

when factoring that in, that unique condition in, generates a positive impact to the general fund.

There's a lot of uncertainty around how many projects we enroll, so we've also shown what that looks like on a per-project basis,

where you have a range of per project a negative $169,000 to positive $11,000 per year into the general fund on the net.

Finally, all of that only covers actual tax, revenue, and spending by the city.

It did not try to capture overall economic benefit, but we did look at a report in Los Angeles for a very similar program that was developed recently,

and computing that over to San Francisco's, to this program,

and the units we expect here estimate that there would be around $133 million

of total economic activity and spending impact generated by these 7,000 new residents

if all the projects move forward.

Finally, the financing plan does also direct the district board

to adopt some program guidelines that will be adopted at their final meeting

after the Board of Supervisors acts to spell out the nitty-gritty details of

how the projects would actually apply to the program and also importantly it

delegates the city's responsibility to issue an annual report to the state to

that district board so we can do it all in one place and not have duplicative

efforts that's our staff presentation we're here for any questions and thank

you so much for your attention

Item 10 is a resolution that approves the downtown revitalization district's financing plan.

The resolution also delegates authority to the district board to approve agreements with property owners who enter into contracts to receive property tax distributions if they convert their buildings from commercial to residential uses.

As we detail in our report, this is a tax increment financing district.

So it takes the incremental increases in property taxes and provides them to building owners that convert from commercial to residential use.

This financing plan sets the rules for that program and projects that about $610 million would be allocated over the 45-year lifespan of the district.

there was a fiscal impact analysis completed as part of the financing plan development process

which determined that the projects on a kind of building by building basis would have either a

negative $170,000 impact on the general fund or a modest positive impact of about $11,000 per

project. That is driven by the fact that unlike other infrastructure financing districts or tax

increment financing districts that have been approved by the board in the past

couple years this allocates the entire incremental increase rather than 50% as

we've seen for other tax increment financing districts we also know in our

report that there's no individual needs assessment on a project by project basis

you know whether they are truly need these subsidies to be financially

feasible. We did evaluate what the what the subsidies would what impact they

would have on project feasibility depending on how much it cost to convert

and like the ultimate sales price of the projects and acquisition costs. We think

that this will fund between 5 and 23 percent of project costs. That is within

the range of other tax increment subsidies that you know have been

approved by the Board of Supervisors, which generally range from 15 to 20%, but there's

actually no cap in a sense, right? And it does create a somewhat perverse incentive in that

the higher end the housing is that's ultimately developed within this district, the higher

the increment will be in the higher amount of the city subsidy there will be for each

project. So I think it's for that reason we are, we did recommend that, that in addition to

the existing cap that's already in the financing plan of not providing more than one thirtieth of

project costs, um, in a given year to the project, we found that that was not, um, an actual like

limiting constraint that, that the financing plan be, be amended to include a cap of say 15%

of project costs, which I think would be reasonable.

Reasonable people could disagree about the number.

Maybe it's 20%, but there should, I think, be some cap

because this is primarily for market rate housing.

We also know in our report that the city will incur administrative costs

to make this district work.

The clerk of the board is going to have to hold meetings for the district board.

The controller's office provides a lot of support to the analysis that's required every year.

And the administrative cost would not be covered until about fiscal year 23, 34,

because the projects themselves are not going to really be opting into the district until fiscal year 28, 29.

And then they finish opting in around fiscal year 35, 36.

so there's a funding gap of about a couple hundred thousand dollars for the

next couple years so I think if you're going to proceed with this the board and

the mayor need to actually appropriately fund the controller and the clerk of the

board to pay for those administrative costs I know OEWD is contemplating

doing reimbursement agreements with developers I think that process has not

concluded yet and it's not clear if anyone's gonna opt in say for next

fiscal year when there will actually be administrative costs so that is a small

but not but important number to keep in mind given the city's financial

condition but happy to answer any other questions

vice-chair Dorsey thank you chair Chan I did want to welcome the students from

Hoover Middle School who are here just we really appreciate you being here and

I will just say this is it is telling that we have elementary school students

who want to show up and support a revitalize revitalization in downtown

for so that when they're in high school and college they'll have a more fun

downtown to go to so you're welcome to speak on that and public comment that's

it thank you and supervisor Sauter well welcome Hoover

Oh, we're scaring them off.

They're like we're done.

They're bored.

We're not interested in a finance plan.

I just briefly want to speak in support of the item as well.

And thank you, Supervisor Dorsey, for your remarks.

You know, I think there's a lot of excitement about this program,

and I appreciate the work that OEWD has done to stand it up.

and also the remarks on maybe a better model to think about the fiscal impact

and measuring the fiscal impact of adaptive reuse rather than the standard model.

And the fact that this is modeled off of a successful program in New York City,

which I think is what so many of us are looking at as a model for our downtown recovery

and incentivizing housing.

So we'll be in support of this item.

Thanks.

Thank you.

Which 48 properties?

I don't think that it was listed.

Thank you, supervisors.

No, we don't have a list of the 48 properties.

BAE did a high-level scan looking at the full list of properties in the current assessor's role throughout the area,

looked at the available data at the time to estimate that it looked like 48 of those properties were eligible at that time.

The criteria they used are so variable, like including the currently reported vacancy rate of the building and so on,

that it didn't really feel wise to put out a list of projects that was based on an online scan that they did of available data of the vacancy.

that also is a number that's going to continue to change.

So we think it was a good method to let us know the rough quantity,

while the particular number of properties that might be attractive for this will change over time.

And also each property is so specific.

The individual bones of the building make such a big difference.

We didn't feel like we had the level of specificity necessary to say we think it's exactly this building or that building,

but to do a scan and say, okay, this feels like a reasonable amount to expect might enroll based on those characteristics?

Sure, but I disagree.

I mean, I think through public records, it's always good to know which 48.

I would like to see that list of 48 to be included on the legislative file.

So I have questions about just generally we have waived impact fees for conversion.

We have done a lot around the conversion from commercial to residential.

And we have also removed inclusionary requirements.

We have done a lot for this area.

I certainly want to understand the 48 potential candidates that could qualify to help, at least me, to understand the feasibility and how real this is.

But most importantly, I also think that if we are going to approve a financing plan based on this 48 properties,

projecting that they could be good candidate, that both in terms of the revenue that we could generate it

or the net impact that could generate based off this 48,

I would like to see by the time that 2032 comes that this is – whether we are projecting accurately or not.

and also whether this really truly become feasible for them or not.

It is difficult.

It is very difficult, in my opinion, layperson opinion,

to convert a commercial property into residential in our downtown area

just to, both in compliance of the building code and all that stuff.

I do also think that while I appreciate AB 2011 and SB 423,

in terms of labor standard.

I certainly hope that if we're going to

subsidize this also on a local level

through our general fund tax increments,

I certainly also hope that we provide

even a higher labor standard

that's inclusive of a project labor agreement.

I know that today my colleagues may not,

you know, concur with the suggestion.

I am simply proposing them

but I certainly think that we should

and the public should too

if we're going to have a financing plan

sponsored by the city

giving away tax increments

also again by the city

the 48 properties should be public

to show whether they're good candidates

for this

whether it's feasibility

but I think we should have that list

So I certainly am going to request for that list before we should, I assume we will move this out for a full board for the vote today.

So I would like to have that.

But for the district board to consider for me as budget chair is that, again, would like to have understanding.

And I think that the BLA will be as well.

I have requested for a report, help us understand fee waivers, different kinds of impacts, including EIFD, and in this case, a financial district, and how would all these really help us boost housing production.

at the end of the day that i do concur with the sentiments that it is you know 2026 we should see

downtown in a different lens it's not the same anymore it would be a much better downtown should

we have sort of this mixed use truly a mixed use of residential and commercial i think there's a

lot of thoughts kicking around now that westfield mall or san francisco mall has closed it's closed

down. I can't imagine like how it would be but it would be certainly wonderful to see some of these

spaces convert into residential a good mixed use not only to bring housing to the space but really

a different population to to be able to mix into that space. It's a very good thing for a long-term

sustainable local economy.

All which is to say I am in support of it.

I do hope that you will take in consideration,

and so will the district board,

to into the consideration of a cap for these 48 projects

in terms of subsidies from the city,

because it would be helpful in the long run.

At some point, we have learned a lot from the payroll tax

for mid-market and felt like if we have put a little bit more

criteria, maybe it's boom time that it will

help offset some of the city's revenue loss a bit.

So I look forward to hope that you could relate that message

to the district board when

you have that further final adoption that these are the concerns

from the BLA. I think it's worth for consideration.

Thank you.

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

Yes, we have members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding this item

number 10.

Now is your opportunity.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thanks for having this hearing and thank you to OEWD.

They've done a tremendous job marshalling this.

My name is Jack Silvan.

I spent many years working here in City Hall and now I run a small development company

that has spent a fair bit of time evaluating the office of residential conversion.

And I think the thing that is, and I appreciate that I think everybody in the room agrees,

it is crucial that what we've learned is that San Francisco's current downtown land use is just not resilient.

It absolutely has to have housing.

And to me, whatever can be done to support that should be done as much as possible.

and I appreciate the recommendations for having caps,

but I can just tell you, having looked at 20 to 25 buildings,

that anything we do that could limit conversions

is just going to hurt us in the long run.

And at the end of the day,

the general fund isn't giving anything up that it actually has.

These property tax revenues only exist because a conversion was made viable through this program, and the investment was made in that building, and that actually creates the tax increment that is being used.

So, and as Jacob referenced, the places where conversions are happening are using this same tool.

And I know there hasn't been a lot of conversation about what's happening in the office market downtown.

And one could read the headlines and go, why do we need this?

And I think it's just worth pointing out in the record that there's still 30 million square feet of vacant space in downtown.

It's by any standard.

It's historically massively a problem.

So I appreciate your support for this.

Thank you, Mr. Jackson.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning, Supervisors.

My name is Peter Leroy Munoz, and I am representing the Bay Area Council, which represents about

400 of the largest employers in the Bay Area.

We were proud to have sponsored AB 2488 by Assemblymember Ting, the legislation authorizing

the EIFD that you were voting on today, and we're thrilled to see the city take up that

opportunity with such alacrity and attention to detail.

San Francisco is a place of constant innovation and renewal, and this district falls squarely

in line with that spirit.

Crime is down, foot traffic is up, but offense vacancy still lingers around 30%, although it is good to note that that is descending as well.

This tax district gives another tool in the tool belt to accelerate the recovery and bring more people to our downtown area.

By helping finance these office-to-housing conversions, we can build more housing in the best place for it, while also filling empty office space holding us back.

That is good for businesses, sales tax receipts, tourism, and so much more.

We urge you to support this measure today and look forward to working with you in the years to come to ensure it is a success.

We also want to give a special thanks to your wonderful staff at OEWD, especially Jacob Bintliff, for their diligence and partnership.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Peter Leroy Munoz.

Next speaker, please.

chair and members of the finance and budget committee thank you for the opportunity to speak

today my name is jesus mendoza and i'm here on behalf of carpenters union local 22 and it's 4 000

men and women who build and reshape our city and county of san francisco like many of you our

members are deeply concerned about the challenges facing downtown high office vacancies stalled

projects and a slowing construction market effect not just buildings but the people who depend on

this work to support their families and remain in the city. Approving the

downtown revitalization financing plan offers a thoughtful and fiscally

responsible way to address those challenges. San Francisco can help move

forward office to housing conversions that are currently difficult to finance.

These projects are especially labor-intensive and require skilled

trades working over multiple years providing steady employment at a time

when private development has slowed. We appreciate that this

approach is performance-based. It relies on future property tax growth that would

not exist without these projects and it does not divert existing city revenue.

That balance, supporting housing production while protecting the city's fiscal health,

is important to working families as well. Keeping construction workers employed locally

strengthens the broader economy. It allows workers to stay in San Francisco, support local businesses,

use public transit, and remain part of the communities they help build. At the same time,

adding permanent residents to downtown supports small businesses, safer streets, and more active

City Corps. We view this as a practical step towards shared goals, housing,

economic recovery, and good local jobs. We respectfully urge your support of this

item and look forward to continuing to work in partnership with the city. Thank

you for your time and consideration. Thank you much, Jesus Mendoza. Next speaker.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Lisa Fulman. I'm an architect at

Skidmore Wings and Merrill, where I also lead our global adaptive reuse program. I

I care deeply about this because I don't want us to return to a downtown that only works from 9 to 5, Monday through Friday.

We've seen what happens when offices empty out.

Housing is what keeps downtowns active, safe, and resilient.

I support downtown revitalization and economic recovery.

Financing District is a tool to create a more vibrant, mixed-use downtown.

A successful downtown needs people at all hours, not just during the workday.

adding housing brings life to the streets supports local businesses and

strengthens our community identity over the past few years my deep research of

the building stock in the c2 and c3 districts shows that there are real

potential for residential conversions not many but some of these buildings are

well suited for adaptive reuse allowing us to make the most of what we already

have rather than starting from scratch a good chunk of the proposed financing

district overlaps with the boundaries of the adaptive reuse program meaning

planning framework is already in place to encourage housing and mixed use in

this area residential conversions help create safer more active streets

support local businesses and build a downtown that can adapt to changes in

how and and where people work this is about shaping a downtown for the long

term not just returning to the pre-brandemic office only model supporting

this district helps ensure we move forward toward a downtown that's lived in, dynamic, and resilient.

Thank you. Thank you much, Lisa Paulman. Next speaker. Hi, supervisors. I'm David Harrison

here on behalf of the San Francisco Chamber of Commerce. First, huge thank you to the OEWD team.

I know this has been years in the making of work and thought about how to solve the downtown

challenge. I'll be brief. I think we've heard a lot of the positive policy considerations for

this, and the chamber shares those goals. I think for so many reasons, obviously we have this high

office vacancy number. A significant amount of that vacancy is functionally obsolete in its

current use, and it is important to the extent that we can to move that building stock off the

market and into a better use that will in turn lead to so many of the other

goals that we have for downtown and for the city transit ridership property tax

values foot traffic and so you know for these reasons and for the chamber being

able to collaborate with folks from from all across the country primarily New

York City to hear about how they've thought about these challenges in the

past we're here in support of this program so thank you and look forward to

continuing to work on the downtown challenge. Thanks. Thank you much David Harrison. Next speaker

please. Good morning my name is Erica McLeodis and I'm here on behalf of SPUR. Our research indicates

that redeveloping obsolete office buildings into housing is one of the best ways to help solve two

issues that have hindered downtown San Francisco's recovery and that's the lack of diversity of land

uses and the lack of workforce housing near employment and transit. As mentioned other cities

including New York, Chicago, and Denver, have used tax increment financing combined with other policy tools and incentive programs

to support office to residential conversions.

And these conversion projects have helped transform sleepy central business districts into those mixed-use 24-7 social hubs

with housing, restaurants, retail, entertainment, and cultural institutions all together.

Here, these conversion projects represent potential thousands of housing units

in an area that already has high-quality transit connections in place

and could bring thousands of new people who can help support the small businesses

and cultural institutions that have been struggling with fewer people and less activity downtown.

Because of this, SPUR supports creating the

Downtown Revitalization and Economic Recovery Financing District to finance these

convergent projects, and we really commend the mayor, the board of supervisors,

and staff from OUWD for their work to advance this legislation. Thank you.

and thank you much for addressing this committee next speaker good afternoon

supervisors mark Babson president of Emerald fund were San Francisco housing

developers we did the big conversion at 100 Van Ness of 418 units it's a decade

ago at the time the numbers were different the construction costs were

70 percent less than they would be today to create the same exact building this

is why we're not seeing any any unsubsidized construction of housing in

San Francisco here we have a product type conversion of office to residential

that could work that we've got a demand for housing we have excess office space

and we've done a great job over the past couple years of putting several

programs in place that would help make the numbers work

oh we WD and Jacob has done a phenomenal job as well as Lily at planning this is

the last leg of the stool that we've been talking about for two years and took

two years of the state to get through and the state has given us the authority

to create this district so I encourage you to go ahead and take the last step

and please do not reduce the available property taxes because the numbers are

so tight we really need every dollar to make it feasible so thank you very much

thank you much Mark Babson next speaker good afternoon Supervisors Whit Turner

on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition and supported this item.

This is really a critical step towards addressing two problems,

the underutilized vacancy of office buildings downtown

and the housing shortage that we're facing.

Estimating to advance approximately 48 projects,

potentially thousands of units of housing,

bringing more and more residents downtown.

That's really meaningful progress

and can put a dent in our arena numbers.

a key part of this transformation is making downtown a 24-7 mixed-use

neighborhood we really want a place where people can live and access public

transportation support local businesses so we're really excited for that and

we're proud to be supporting this alongside the NorCal carpenters our

members Emerald Fund and we thank the ODWD team especially Jacob for their

leadership on this we know this is a viable step towards more housing we've

seen the example in in Manhattan that helped convert obsolete office space

into over 12,000 different 12,000 new homes so we believe this approach can

can deliver the Housing Action Coalition I urges you to support this item thank

you thank you much with Turner and seeing no further speakers madam chair

that completes our queue thank you seeing no more public comments public

Comment is now closed.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I want to again reiterate my gratitude to OEWD

and everybody who came out to support this.

I also want to express my gratitude to our colleague,

Supervisor Sauter, who is doing a lot of the heavy lifting

and sweating the details as the chair of the district board.

I am happy to be an enthusiastic cheerleader,

but he is doing a lot of the work,

and I wanted to just express my gratitude to him

and to his office as well and I'm happy to make the motion I'd like to send

this out to the full board with our positive recommendation and a roll call

please and on that motion by vice chair Dorsey that we refer this resolution to

the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey Dorsey I remember Sauter

Sauter aye church and I Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes

With that, Mr. Clerk, please call items 11 and 12 together.

Yes, item number 11 is an ordinance authorizing the mayor's office to accept and expand the grant in the amount of $7 million from Bloomberg Philanthropies to fund the mayor's office of innovation from January 1, 2026 through December 31, 2028,

approving the associated grant agreement under the Charter and amending the annual salary ordinance for fiscal years 2025 to 2026 and 2026 to 2027

to provide for the creation of four grant-funded full-time positions in the Office of the City Administrator

with one position in each of the following classes.

Class 931, Manager 3.

Class 1053, IAS Business Analyst Senior.

Class 1054, IAS Business Analyst Principal.

and Class 1043 IS Engineer Senior.

And item number 12 is a resolution authorizing the Mayor's Office to accept and expand a grant

in the amount of $700,000 from Tipping Point Community for the establishment of a Director of Strategic Partnerships

to advance public-private partnership initiatives aligned with mayoral priorities

for the period of January 20, 2026 through July 1, 2028.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

And what I would like to help to proceed with this one is noted that item 11 has a budget and legislative analyst report.

So let's go to item 11 first, and then we'll go to BLA, and then we'll go to item 12, presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair, supervisors.

Good afternoon, and thank you for having me.

My name is Florence Simon.

I'm director of the Mayor's Office of Innovation.

I'm here on behalf of the Mayor's Office to ask for your support on accepting and expending a $7 million grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies.

This grant will fund my team, the Mayor's Office of Innovation, for the next three years, from January of this year through December of 2028.

And I know we have not signed the grant agreement yet. We are awaiting the approval of the board to do that.

So the $7 million will fund the current team, which is six people, and allow us to expand the team to 10 people.

That's going to be nine people funded by Bloomberg Philanthropies and one person funded in our city budget in the Department of Technology.

I want to emphasize that this is big news.

Among dozens of innovation teams and offices that Bloomberg Philanthropies has funded around the world in the last decade, this is the biggest grant they've ever given to any city anywhere.

It's a win for our whole city, a testament to the leadership of the board, the mayor,

the departments on innovating in government, on delivering better outcomes for residents.

It's recognition, what we've already done.

It's a vote of confidence in the energy-run government innovation in City Hall

and also the ecosystem of technology and innovation that is growing and evolving out in San Francisco every day.

And what Bloomberg hopes to achieve by partnering with us is to support us in being a lighthouse model of innovation.

In other words, testing new approaches, scaling them, and using them to deliver for San Francisco.

And I hope that is something that we can work together to achieve.

I'll talk a bit about our office's value proposition as well as our work to date.

So our office uses new approaches, data, software, hardware, human-centered design, public-private partnerships, best practices from other cities.

We use that to drive progress on key priorities of the city and make sure we're really meeting the needs of our residents.

We're able to do research, look at data, qualitative research to find the right solutions, challenge

assumptions, not just think that the right solutions are the ones that we've assumed

we needed for the last 10 years.

For example, if someone comes to us and asks us, and this is pretty frequent, I want you

to build software.

What we are able to do is say, do we really need software?

How do we really meet the needs of our residents and deliver results for them?

I think it's also important to emphasize that as an innovation office, we are able to try

things, test them out, learn, adjust, and then if they work, then scale it. And I think that approach

of being able to test something and then scale it only if it works, it's really powerful in the

budget-constrained environment that we are living in today. So we have a lot of different skill sets

on the team, policy limitation, product management, data science, service design, technology evaluation,

and many of these skill sets are rarer in city government, and we've already started to demonstrate

their value, as demonstrated by the work that we've already done to date in this last year

with the Mayor's Office of Innovation, working with the mayor, the chiefs on the city's key

priorities, from safe streets to revitalizing the economy to better government services for

San Franciscans. So there's six projects we've already made a lot of progress on or delivered,

but there's so much more work to do. So I'll tell you a bit more about what we've actually done to

help you get a better idea of what the Mayor's Office of Innovation can be delivering for San

Francisco over the next three years. So we take what I'll call a problem-first approach. And what

I mean by that is, importantly, we're not here to sprinkle, you know, tech or AI fairy dust on things.

We are here to deeply understand the problem, find the right solution, and get that solution done.

And that's been our approach to informing homelessness response, to sustaining benefits

for San Franciscans who are on Medi-Cal, on CalFresh, in the face of federal work requirements,

on centralized, transparent, and efficient permitting, on making sure that we can fill

our staffing gap of 500 police officers and not take two years to hire each one, on better

violence prevention and incident response, on delivering better transit customer experience.

There's so much of this work that is important, that is ongoing.

So I'll get into a bit more detail on each of these projects now.

For homelessness, for example, what we are doing on homelessness is using data and technology

to deliver the right resources and services to people experiencing homelessness so we can drive the right outcomes.

For example, we built a mobile app to coordinate how fire, homelessness and supportive housing,

public health, and emergency management departments can deliver the right services and supports to individual clients.

We're piloting a system to make sure that we can match clients to the appropriate shelter beds.

That's solving two problems.

The first is we're paying money for shelter beds and people aren't actually using them.

The second is that we have people experiencing homelessness and they want to go to a shelter

for the night and they're talking to our street teams and that street team member is calling

10 different shelters.

That's a real number.

That's not made up.

10 different shelters and still not able to place that person in a bed for the night.

That doesn't work.

And so what we are doing is building a tool that allows street teams to say, all right,

here's where all the shelter beds are available.

in the city. Here's what's filled. Here's what's open. Here's what matches my client needs so that

we can actually serve them quickly and easily. Another thing we're doing is really digging into

the journeys, the needs, looking at data for our high need clients, people who are going to the ER

multiple times a month, going to the hospital multiple times a month. And sadly, there are

many of these people in San Francisco. So we're trying to understand is let's look at what we're

trying to understand there is how do we get them to long-term care, to shelter, to housing? And we

know that if we can do that, not only is that great for them, but it could save us millions

of dollars every year. So there's lots of potential that we're working to realize on homelessness.

Benefits, another critical project for some of our most vulnerable San Franciscans, as I think that

this committee knows tens of thousands of San Franciscans are at risk of losing their critical

Medicaid benefits, their food stamp benefits, as early as July. And that is because last July,

President Trump sponsored and Congress passed legislation called H.R.1, and that's putting

work requirements on Medicaid and food stamp recipients. And that means that thousands of

people could lose their benefits, and it could also be a huge problem for our county health

systems, our local businesses. And so what we need to do quickly is figure out how can we

work together to make sure that people can be in compliance with the new law,

compliance with the work requirements, so that people can keep their benefits.

And so we're trying to make sure we're helping San Franciscans at every step of the way.

If they qualify for exemptions, get them exempted.

If they're working, document that.

If they're not working, connect them to work, connect them to volunteer opportunities again

so they can comply and keep their benefits.

We know there's a lot of opportunities we've done research on where we can improve awareness,

where we can reduce paperwork burdens, where we can connect people to work better.

And so we're going to be launching some technology pilots.

We're going to be improving processes, having new volunteer and work programs

so that we can really lead a best-in-class response on this huge issue for our county and city.

On permitting, we're working to launch a single online citywide permitting system.

It's coming out starting on February 13th.

The new system will have immediate impact on remodeling homes, commercial business improvements,

fire safety systems, planning and launching special events.

Applicants will be able to request permits online, and that's actually really big,

so it doesn't mean they have to take the day off work,

wait around the permit center for four to eight hours, pay for parking.

It's all going to be done online in a modern system.

Staff are going to have a new system to work together easily, collaborate, process permits.

We'll have reporting dashboards so people can actually see how their permit is progressing

so that you as city leaders can track our performance, help us think about where we can be doing better.

So we're really excited to be living with that impact starting in mid-February.

On police hiring, a great example of our work, what we did there is first just take a look at the data, understand where are people getting stuck, why is it taking two years to hire a police officer?

And when we found out what some of the bottlenecks were, such as background checks, such as the battery of disparate exams that people have to be taking, we then figured out how to redesign processes so that it could be much easier for applicants.

We did more digital marketing so we could attract more applicants, and we delivered some great results.

50% more applicants this year in 2025 compared to 2024.

We shortened that hiring timeline by 66%.

We completely flipped the trajectory.

So in 2024, our police force lost 40 police officers.

In 2025, we hired 40 police officers.

And so this demonstrates how our approach of really taking a look at the data and designing the process to make sure that it's working for real people.

how it can have results. A couple more examples, violence prevention, incident response.

Strange but true. We found back in the fall that there can be a lag of up to nine days between when

our departments like public health, police, district attorney are doing violence response

or violence prevention work and when we as the city and the mayor learned about it. And so we

built a new tool so they could do reporting in 24 to 48 hours. We got them together around a group

of shared outcomes. They could be working together. It's another example of how we're integrating

data to drive better performance. On transit, we have piloted some proactive and rapid response

models for cleaning some of the most written and complained about transit lines, showing that we

can be responsive to customer feedback, building support for transit in advance of the votes and

revenue measures in fall of 2026. So there's a lot of work for us to do still in 2026 and beyond,

refining that shelter and bed matching tool, the high need client tool, permitting launches in

February and April, H.R. 1 response, this grant will allow us to keep doing it. Because these are

critical projects for the city, I think that can help to answer the question of what are you doing

when it comes to matching? Because as the BLA analysts will likely talk to you about, there is

a one-third match on this grant. What I emphasize there is historically, from the current Bloomberg

grant we have, what I know is that Bloomberg's been very flexible about this. When we're investing

in a project in which the Mayor's Office of Innovation is involved, that counts. So for example,

if we're investing in broader HR run response, that counts. If we're investing in data integration

for the city, the unified data platform, that counts. If we have volunteers working on our

projects, that counts as an in-kind donation. So lots of different options, lots of flexibility

to get that match done. I do want to speak quickly to what the four new people are doing,

since we are asking for four new positions. So first, we're going to hire a service design

leader, and their initial focus is going to be outcomes-based contracting. What do I mean by

that? Well, as I think you know, we're spending so much money, billions of dollars on homelessness

response, healthcare, food, workforce development. These are essential services for San Franciscans.

Often we are spending this money with nonprofits. Often these contracts are getting very long and

very convoluted. And so what we want to do is take a fresh look at how are these contracts,

these partnerships, these billions of dollars actually delivering results for people? How do

we measure that? How do we incentivize better performance? So that's what that person is going

to work on. We'll have another designer who's going to be working more on the homelessness and

HR1 projects I just talked about, because as you can imagine, these are not just one-person projects.

They need a bit more support than that. We'll have a data scientist who's going to be working

also on how we can drive better results on public safety, on transportation capital project delivery,

and finally a product manager who's going to be working on just engaging our ecosystem of

innovation, companies, philanthropy, academia, residents, the students that you saw today,

everyone can contribute to innovation. Anyone can contribute new ideas to government. And so

this person will be working with them on, for example, sourcing and piloting ideas to keep

streets and neighborhoods safer, piloting technologies, helping us maintain long-term

leadership on innovation. Lastly, because this is the budget committee, I do want to end by

talking a little bit about our project's ability to help us deliver results for residents.

and improve the city's budget financial sustainability.

I think we have a great opportunity here

to show that we can do both,

that we can deliver residents

and not have to add to our budget deficit every time.

So for example, with police officer hiring,

we can deliver savings on the police overtime budget,

on homelessness,

if we're placing those high need clients

in long-term care and housing,

it's better for them and the city budget.

If there's fewer ER visits, fewer hospital stays,

we're gonna be looking for better value for money

on those contracts, on time on budget,

delivery for transportation capital projects.

These are just a few examples of ways where our projects

can serve both our budget priorities

and San Franciscans at the same time.

So in conclusion, I'm asking for your support

in bringing more resources to San Francisco

to find new and better ways to serve San Franciscans.

Thank you.

Item 11, this is a ordinance

that would authorize the mayor's office to accept and expend a seven million

dollar grant from Bloomberg Philanthropies it amends the annual

salary ordinance to add four positions to the city administrator budget and then

also approves the grant agreement for the grant award this funding so this is

seven million dollars that will fund five positions at the mayor's office of

innovation and then the four new ones that are being created here for the next

three calendar years starting January 2026. The grant does have a 30% match or

2.3 million dollars. The mayor's office intends to fundraise for about half of

that and then use related but existing general fund spending to meet the other

portion of the match requirement. There's no fundraising to date and the but my

understanding is that the fundraising will be used to fund positions once the

grant expires in three years if the fundraising unsuccessful this would be a

general fund cost of about two and a half million dollars for these positions so

we can evaluate you know the status of the fundraising you know in this

upcoming budget in the next couple years to to see if the positions are in fact

if the fundraising has been successful and if they're you know if they are

continued if the positions are funded by the grant going forward we look at when

we look at the positions in the budget there's about a $300,000 funding gap each

year if everyone was at the top salary step even with this grant I believe

after talking to the mayor's office of housing that they're not expecting

everyone on the team to actually be at that top step and so they really do

believe they can fit the seven million dollars at least over these next three years to fully fund

the positions in the budget but again we can we can look at that during the budget process going

forward but i think this this grant now does allow the city to pay for existing staff costs and so

we recommend approval of item 11. thank you you're saying that you're currently it's going to grow to

a 10-people team, are they actually fill position?

The six people that are existing, so it's six people right now, and we're looking at

ways that we can bring on four more people.

And are they filled?

The six positions that are existing are filled.

And then the four are not?

The four, we are looking at ways if we can bring on temporary folks, but of course we

want to wait for the budget ordinance to be happy bringing on permanent staff.

Oh yeah, you absolutely have to.

You should wait.

And how is the fundraising going for the positions?

We have started some initial fundraising conversations.

It seems that folks are really excited to be funding government innovation at this moment.

What I will say is that if and when we are able to pass this ordinance and be able to announce this broadly,

I think that will generate a lot more energy and enthusiasm for fundraising.

What is your plan if you don't raise the money by the time that June comes?

June is for budget.

We don't need to raise the money by the time that June comes.

Bloomberg...

You do.

Because, I mean, I think that what is happening here is that you will...

If this money is actually...

So the budget and legislative analysts indicating that if you do not raise the remaining dollars,

then it will come out of general fund.

Oh, no.

Okay.

Yeah, I can speak to that.

So the way that the budget works for Bloomberg is that they actually are encouraging us to spend as much of it down as we can.

So we are actually able to spend down all of the grant within the next three years.

And then if there's a gap, and I think the gap in total would be about three months at the end of 2028,

then at the end of 2028, we would need to have conversations in 2028 or fundraising conversations or budget conversations.

but we don't need to raise the money by the time that June comes

because we're able to use the full amount of the grant

in order to cover all the salaries

and then push out that last gap until 2028.

But then when you hire the individuals,

you are putting them on a contract until 2028?

Yes.

But you are not fully funded from this point until 2028

for all four FTEs.

Yes, there is a three-month, essentially, if we are going to be funding the nine FTEs, because one is already funded, then we will have a gap of about $900,000 over three years.

However, what the Bloomberg contract will allow us to do, and I know this because I have managed the existing Bloomberg contract, is it will allow us to push that out until the very end of the grant.

And so then that means the gap will not actually hit us until September of 2028.

So technically, that's not how budget works.

Okay.

For the budget, it's two fiscal years projection.

Yep.

Right?

Yeah.

For the 26-27 and the 27-28.

Yeah.

And that go along with the ASO, which is really indicating the position.

If you're not – this is the reason why I'm saying you do need to actually have it by June as part of the budget,

unless someone wants to correct me if I'm inaccurate, that in your budget – in the mayor's budget proposal,

by the time it comes to the board, that you would then indicate it

whether it's fully funded with those positions or not?

Yes. We will look at the position levels.

We will speak with Bloomberg, and by the time that June comes around,

I believe that given the position levels as well as the flexibility

that Bloomberg gives us, it will be fully funded for the 2026-27

and 2027-28.

Great. That's the answer I was looking for.

Yes.

That you do have to get back to us by June.

Yes.

Whether you're fully funded or not.

I do want to actually say this, and this is what I say.

I think for anyone who has seen me doing this for the fourth year in a row,

for any grant-funded position, I've said that to the public defenders too,

for any grant-funded position that, you know, with the terms of the grant,

it should be fully funded by the grant,

and if there were general fund involved, it will be up for the budget process discussion

because now you're pulling into general fund and meaning they are general fund.

And that will not necessarily be, I will not necessarily be supportive for general fund position.

Not to mention the project that you indicated, which is the homeless individuals using the ERs.

I believe this will be the third year of this very ongoing project.

And here we are still on the third year.

It sounds to me, though, it's still listed as one of your top projects in your presentation.

And that is well into 2028.

how long do you anticipate or when do you anticipate this project will be completed that we can then understand the really the structure or like the best practice in reducing the emergency or ER visit.

I anticipate it will be completed by the end of this calendar year.

So between September to December 2026.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

I had a question on, you know, after the funds from Bloomberg, what other sort of engagement is there with Bloomberg Philanthropies?

Are they giving advice or direction?

Are you meeting with them regularly?

Do you meet with other similarly funded offices of innovation?

Yes and yes.

So we are meeting with Bloomberg once every month or two to discuss the projects we're working on.

and we're meeting with other similarly funded cities probably once or twice a year.

Good. Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I will say I'm a fan of Bloomberg Philanthropies,

and I had the opportunity in 2019 to work with one of them in Tobacco-Free Kids.

I really appreciate the work that they do.

And I think one of the things that I have heard from people,

leaders in the philanthropic community,

about the rationale for matching grants

is that they need to know that their partners have skin in the game on it.

So I do appreciate that there's flexibility.

It sounds to me like Bloomberg is appreciative of flexibility on this.

One thing that is a priority for me,

and I appreciate that this is actually mentioned in here

about identifying drug treatment beds, for example,

There's also something that I just want to flag that I really appreciate.

Process improvements and new technologies to sustain Medicaid and SNAP benefits for recipients.

In 2027, we're going to have new rules around Medicaid.

And I believe that the estimate that I have seen is about at least nationwide 1.6 Medicaid enrollees who are enrolled in treatment for substance use disorder will lose insurance because of H.R. 1.

this is going to be the hammer is going to drop and I really am worried about the success the

progress that we're making on our drug crisis and getting people into will suddenly we're going to

be in a very difficult situation I'm really interested in that and I think that's going to

be a really important I know I see that it's in here but I would just wanted to give voice to

So that is going to need to be something that we really focus on.

Because unless there's something that changes, and it's not impossible that it will change during this election year,

it's going to be really bad when H.R. 1 takes effect on January 1 of 2027 for Medicaid recipients,

especially those in drug treatment.

Yeah, that's why we're starting now, to work on it.

And we can keep you updated.

Thank you. And last couple of questions, wanted to just make sure we could include an org chart if you're growing the team for this Office of Innovation that I would appreciate prior to, again, I assume we're supportive of it, that we will go to the full board of this item.

So I would appreciate to have an org chart before it goes in full board for approval.

And my last question is on this Office of Innovation, but specifically for the Bloomberg grant.

I asked these questions before.

How's data sharing goes?

Particularly, you're going to have a new data scientist on this.

What does data sharing with Bloomberg and with the city look like?

Oh, we're not sharing any data with Bloomberg.

Not other than very high level, like 44% of people are experiencing this, 70%,

but there's no individual data going to Bloomberg categorically.

Thank you.

All right.

With that, we'll go to item number 12.

Oops, excuse me.

Good afternoon, Chair Chan and members of the committee.

Good afternoon.

I'm Ali Bondi, Deputy Chief of Staff for Mayor Daniel Lurie.

I'm excited to present this accept and expend request

that would enable the city to launch a pilot effort

to strengthen strategic private-public partnerships.

Today's action would authorize the mayor's office

to accept and expend a $700,000 grant

from Tipping Point Community to fund the salary and benefits

for a director of strategic partnerships.

housed in the mayor's office.

The grant would fund the position fully for two years

and 50% in year three,

with the remaining 50% in year three

coming from the mayor's office budget.

The position authority already exists.

It's just currently unfunded.

So today's item allows us to stand up the capacity

without creating a new position or ongoing obligation.

Over the years, San Francisco

has had different versions of this role.

Most recently, I believe in Mayor Lee's office, and it's becoming increasingly common in other major cities as well.

We all know that San Francisco has a vibrant philanthropic community,

and when we do partnerships well, we can deliver more to our residents and communities than we could alone,

whether that's on housing and homelessness, economic recovery, government effectiveness, or future areas.

We're very pleased to have found a wonderful person to step into this role, Cynthia Wong.

Cynthia is a proud North Beach resident, has a long history in nonprofits, philanthropy, spanning CZI, LISC, Bay Area, Seattle Foundation.

She's the proud bilingual daughter of immigrants and grew up working in her family's restaurant.

I am really looking forward to introducing each of you to her in the coming weeks.

And with that, I respectfully request for your support and recommendation.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and I also would love to read into the record a small retroactive amendment that's been distributed to all of your offices.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Help me understand similar questions I had.

So will this, as a grant-funded position, so I see that it's for two calendar years, 2026 and 2027.

So is that the term agreement also with Ms. Wong?

No, she's at will.

She's at will.

But I should say this, but that she is expected that her position is going to last for two years.

Is that what it is?

What is the mayor's vision?

Our vision for this is that it's a pilot.

It may work.

It may not prove to be worth having a position in the mayor's office for.

It may be something that we want to fundraise for and continue, or it may be something that

the mayor's office decides we can work into our own staffing model and keep it for years

beyond that.

but we don't want to

we honestly, we're still developing the vision

and that's in part why we need Cynthia to come in

and help us develop what is the true roadmap

for public-private partnerships.

I appreciate the inclusive of the job description

like kind of help us understand

like where you, the mayor's vision

like is heading toward

and so I appreciate that

And typically that would be totally enough, except we're doing this retroactively.

So I would also appreciate to have Ms. Wong's resume to be inclusive.

Oh, absolutely.

I mean, job discussion usually is good.

Sure, yeah.

Because then it goes out and we will know.

But in this case, since it's a retroactive, I would appreciate that.

I don't have additional questions.

I think that clearly there's a need for, I think, along with some of our effort early on to grant the mayor and the mayor's team, some mayor's team, behest payment waivers, that there was never a need or there was not a position to sort of cultivate those relationships.

But also to help us track the waivers, it would be helpful to have someone that we can go to and say, how has the list of last six months been?

And what is the list of waivers or donors and contacts?

I think that provides a level of transparency that I look forward to.

So help us gauge, like, should the mayor comes back for another six months of waiver, it will help us have a better understanding how much we're accomplishing and what more needs to be done.

So I appreciate actually having someone who does just that.

I don't know if, yeah, okay, I'm going to leave it like that for now.

I mean, I think that we will, I want to learn more about sort of what the end results that we're looking for.

I mean, I can hear to see, like, the Break the Cycle Fund and the whole listing of topics or issues that the mayors is trying to raise dollars for.

So I look forward to seeing more details in the budget.

Like, meaning I think that there's a lot of things that identify here I concur with and would like to see how then with this position, with this staff coming on board, and how would that incorporate into our budgeting or not.

I think the last year when we start to providing the behest payment waivers, with the understanding there are certain items.

I'm going to give an example like Immigration Defense Fund.

That was part of a waiver to say let's develop some funding and let's see where that money could be raised and come from.

and therefore during the add-back process or during the budget process,

we have decided that there are a certain level of funding and programming

that we think we could probably, you know,

to actually have the mayor to say,

let's raise dollars for outside of the city and outside of public funds.

We'd love to see more of that in details

in the budget that he's going to propose in June

to say these are his visions and dollars and goals

now that you have someone on board to help set fundraising goal.

I think that's...

The priorities.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Makes sense.

So I just want to not to...

It's not explicitly discussed in the job scope,

but that's probably what I anticipate to see in the budget process.

Understood. Thank you.

Thank you.

I don't see any other name in the roster.

Thank you for the presentation.

Let's go to public comments for both items 11 and 12.

Yes, if you have members of the public, who wish to address this committee regarding these

items 11 or 12?

Now is your opportunity.

Hi, folks.

I'm Anya Worley-Zigman with the People's Budget Coalition.

And this is a good thing that this is not being paid for out of the general fund, but

but it's worth being wary of what this means when we are privatizing all of these important tasks of city government.

This is something to really keep in mind what happens when our next or future mayors are not as well tied with the funding community.

Is this something that could be used as a cudgel in the future for the ultra-wealthy to control the outcomes of San Francisco?

And it's a good thing in the moment, but we have to be really wary about what we're privatizing and what we no longer control as San Francisco.

It's also worth noting that so much of this is on community engagement and on outreach and coordination and not direct services that are going to be fundraised here,

which is we have to point out that disparity a little bit

when all of our providers at DPH just were notified

about $17 million of cuts

because they do not provide direct services.

None of this presented here today is direct services.

This is all community engagement.

This is all outreach.

It's the very programs that are being cut

that serve black and brown and queer San Franciscans.

So that's a little frustrating.

It's worth acknowledging.

So that disparity sort of coming out of the mayor's office is, are we going to pay $50,000 to operate a homeless oversight commission, or are we going to fundraise a million dollars to pay a consultant to do that work that is done by the commission?

that is what we're talking about this is sort of the direct one-to-one comparison here and this is

sort of the the steps in which the city will take instead of perhaps talking to non-profits

talking to community members talking to the people who are on the streets actually doing this work

although this is helpful to have people in this position it's good that it's not going to be

general fund but it is worth keeping these disparities in mind on the paycheck that these

folks will be receiving compared to the direct service providers thank you and

thank you on your worthy Seatman and madam chair that completes our queue

seeing no seeing no more public comments public comment is now closed

thank you and colleagues thoughts vice-chair Dorsey I would like to move

this move that we send this to the full board with our positive recommendation

understood I think will amend item 12 and then could I add to that motion to

amend sure okay roll call please and on that motion by chair champ to accept the

amendments and item number 12 and the motion by vice-chair Dorsey that we

refer the ordinance and item 11 and the resolution and item 12 to the full board

with recommendation item 12 as amended Vice-Chair Dorsey Dorsey I member

Sauter Sauter I chair Chan I Chan I we have three eyes the motion passes thank

you and mr. Clark do we have any other items before us today I'm an attorney

concludes our business the meetings adjourned

Thank you.