Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the April 29, 2026 meeting of the Budget and Finance Committee.

I am Chair, I am Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I am joined by Supervisor Souter.

Our um Clerk, it's Brent Haliba.

I would like to thank James Kawana from Essex of TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clerk, 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.

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

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

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

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

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

Email them to myself.jo v dot or g.

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 one, Dr.

Carlton Viga Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of May 5th, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And with that, uh I would like to first move uh for us to excuse Vice Chair Matt Dorsey in a uh roll call on that motion, please.

And on that motion, do we excuse uh Vice Chair Dorsey from attending today's meeting?

Member Sauter.

Sauter I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have two ayes.

Would Vice Chair Dorsey excuse?

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is a resolution retroactively authorizing the Department of Public Health to accept and expend a grant increase from the National Institutes of Health through Florida State University for participation in a program entitled Adolescent Medicine Trials Network for HIV AIDS Interventions, ATN Scientific Leadership Center, in the amount of approximately 172,000 for the period of January 15, 2026 through January 14, 2027, for a total amount of approximately 408,000 for the total period of January 25, 2023 through January 14, 2027.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have Department of Public Health here.

The total amount is 408,000, but we are the grant increase is 172,000.

The timeline is January 25, 2023 to January 14, 2027.

The funder is the National Institutes of Health through the Florida State University.

The summary of the grant is that it is a leadership grant to help us to plan the pro for prevention and treatment of adolescents age 13 to 24 with HIV or at risk for HIV.

And so we will be uh providing scientific leadership for that group.

We're seeking retroactive authorization to approve this grant, accept and expend.

Uh the project period for the grant, as I noted, was January 15, 2026 through January 14, 2027.

The start date was predetermined by the grantor.

We received notice of this grant increase on February 13, 2026, after the project start date.

And we brought this item to the Board of Supervisors after going through fiscal approvals process, including the controllers review and approval.

And so we respectfully request retroactive approval of this item.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

I really appreciate the work and thank you so much for the statements on retroactivity.

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

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board as recommended, Member Sauter.

Sorry, I chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have two ay's.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number two.

Yes, item number two is a resolution approving the First Amendment between the City Act and by and through the Department of Disability and Aging Services and Homebridge Inc.

for the provision of contract mode in-home supportive services, increasing the agreement amount by 118.8 million for a new total not to exceed amount of 158.4 million with no changes to the original term of July 1st, 2025 through June 30, 2029.

Effective upon approval of this resolution.

And to authorize the Executive Director of the Department of Disability and Aging Services to make necessary nonmaterial changes to the amendment before its execution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have the Department of Disability and Aging Services.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Supervisor Salter.

My name is Shannon Morgan.

I am the program director of San Francisco County's In-Home Supportive Services, also known as IHSS.

I am seeking your approval to amend the grant agreement with Home Bridge Incorporated and the amount not to exceed 158.4 million dollars.

This will allow the Human Services Agency to continue funding contracted caregiving services for IHSS recipients who face medical, mental health, and other life challenges.

These challenges prevent a subset of our recipients from utilizing the IHSS public authorities contract, I'm sorry, caregiving.

These challenges prevent a subset of our recipients from utilizing IHSS's public authorities registry list to self-direct their care.

Most of the recipients assigned to Home Bridge services either reside in permanent supportive housing, lack a reliable family member in their lives, or have a history of being unhoused.

Currently, Homebridge is serving approximately 1,100 of our IHSS recipients.

Two objectives that were of interest to this committee last year, of which Home Bridge did not meet the target for for fiscal year 24-25 was one, serving an annual average of at least 65 percent of IHSS authorized hours.

They also did not meet the 95 percent total authorized hours for recipients who are available and accepting of care.

Last year, when I came before the committee, I talked about the challenges that Home Bridge faces with meeting the 65 percent objective target.

Today, I can confirm that meeting this objective is virtually unattainable, given the fact that recipients have the right to refuse caregiving services.

They have the right to refuse a caregiving schedule where most or all of their hours are served.

They also have the right to refuse care when the provider is at their door.

We also have recipients who agree to services, but when the provider shows up, they're not there.

To highlight this point, I would like to share with you the story of ETA.

Etta is an 81-year-old woman living in the Bayview district.

She has been receiving home bridge services for 14 years.

She is currently authorized 143 hours.

However, on a six-month average, Homebridge has only been able to serve 26 percent of ETA's total authorized hours.

And that is because ETA has a strict preference on which provider she will allow in her home.

When her main provider is on vacation or ill, she simply will not allow a substitute provider to be matched with her, despite Home Bridge's attempts to encourage it.

For ETA, she wants to remain as independent as possible, even if that's not realistic.

And as such, she will refuse for all of her hours to be served.

The barriers associated with ETA, limited served hours, are neither unique nor isolated.

We also have Ron, age 80 and Brian, age 57.

They both live in the tenderloin area and have been connected to Home Bridge for a little less than five years.

Both Ron and Brian, Ronald and Brian are getting around 30% of their total hours served.

They are adamant that they only want Home Bridge providers to provide limited services, which pretty much consist of light domestic services.

For Ronald, he only allows for his floors to be swept or his bathroom to be cleaned.

Ronald is also very particular on having strangers in his home.

This results in him refusing additional hours.

For Brian, Homebridge attempted to accommodate his caregiver schedule, thinking that would entice him to be open to more services, but it did not.

When these instances occurs, these are considered lockouts and again prevents hours from being served totally.

As mentioned, these challenges are driven by the recipient and are virtually outside of Home Bridge's control.

Therefore, the objective regarding the 65% total authorized hours served, it will be removed from future grant agreements with Home Bridge.

With regards to the objective of meeting 90% 95% of total authorized served for recipients who are available and accepting, some of the root causes for Homebridge's inability to meet that objective in fiscal year 24-25 is centered on a recipient's preference.

We have recipients who have very unique preferences or expectations or outright demands that are sometimes unable to be met.

And as such, they will refuse care.

Even when Homebridge goes above and beyond to meet expectations and preferences, and there's a successful match, they do have to prepare for last minute changes.

A change could be the recipient's preferred provider is on vacation, sick, has car troubles.

So as such, Home Bridge will dispatch a substitute provider to serve.

And if the recipient feels that this substitute is not meeting their expectation, they will refuse the service.

And that really holds our hands tied on the Home Bridge and IHSS side.

Another root cost to Home Bridge's inability to meet the 95% objective target for the last fiscal year centered on safety.

Home bridge providers enter home environments where at a moment's notice their safety can be at risk.

They're also traveling to areas in the city where it's there's incidents of crime or violent acts which prevents, which causes providers to be concerned about their safety.

And as such, we will have to put services on hold until we can come up to a come with a backup plan or some safety measures to mitigate safety risk.

We have been doing our due diligence to review data to make programmatic decisions within IHSS and Home Bridge to come closer to meeting all objectives.

That survey, during last year's survey, Home Bridge had some unplanned, unexpected administrative shifts, which caused them to put on hold all of the interventions that were discussed and agreed upon, which we determined would help them move closer to meeting the satisfaction survey.

However, they've moved past these shifts, and this fiscal year to date, Home Bridge has met and exceeded the 30% of satisfaction surveys completed.

I'm hoping that these performance updates and these client stories help paint a better picture of the complexities Home Bridge has to navigate in serving some of IHSS's most vulnerable recipients.

San Francisco is still the only IHSS, has still the only IHSS program in the state that has home bridge services.

However, we are hearing from other counties that they are exploring Homebridge because there are so many more recipients coming to IHSS attention who simply cannot interview, hire, and supervise care.

And therefore we need Homebridge to fill this gap.

IHSS is continuing to partner with Homebridge to have footprints at navigation centers, shelters, where it's been identified that not only is IHSS needed, but contracted services are needed because the client, the clientele simply cannot manage being the employer for their care.

I respectfully ask that the grant agreement be amended so Homebridge can continue to partner with Homebridge to continue to meet the growing needs of older adults and persons with disabilities in the city.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Item two is a resolution that approves an amendment to the grant between HSA and Homebridge.

The amendment would increase the contract value from it would increase them to 158.4 million dollars and extend the agreement through June 2029.

This grant funds about 389 IHSS workers to serve about 1,100 clients.

We summarized the performance over the past two years on page six of our report.

You can see they generally met the objectives of the grant, and when they didn't meet those objectives, they were close to meeting the objectives with the two notable exceptions that were just discussed by the department, which include uh delivering the contracted amount of hours served and just and distributing surveys to at least 30 percent of clients.

While in the past two years they did not meet those objectives.

Um more recent data suggests that they are uh meeting those objectives in this current fiscal year.

Uh and then you can see on page eight of the report, this is about a $36 million a year contract.

Uh 10.8 million is funded by the general fund with the remaining costs funded by State and Federal sources.

HSA is projecting a slight increase in the IHSS workload for the contract mode and the independent provider mode, which is the subject of the next contract due to just changing demographics, which will exceed the impact of the one big beautiful bill that may push people out of the program.

But we do recommend approval of item two.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um, thank you for the presentation.

Just a few quick questions.

Um thank you for kind of going through some of the client examples.

I think that was helpful to see that reality versus the numbers uh in the objectives here.

On the 65 percent target, you know, I understand how there might be challenges to actually utilizing those hours again with the example you shared.

What happens then with those hours that are essentially underutilized or unused?

I mean, is there any sort of uh, you know, does that sort of unspent funds, or is that just that um you know those exist and they just did not those hours were not used then to serve the client.

Your latter statement is correct.

They are authorized but just not used.

Got it.

And the So then and then the in the second uh objective here around you know when the recipient is actually available and willing to receive service.

Why would that be 88 percent?

Like what is happening in those 12 or 13 percent of the time where again, the the recipient is is available and able, why the 13 percent of the time are the services not given?

It's still driven by the recipient.

We between Home Bridge and the assigned IHSS worker, we will make contact with the recipient, reminding them of their monthly authorized hours, how many hours can be served weekly, and asking them what is preventing them from getting all their hours served.

You will have recipients simply stating, I prefer not to have anyone do personal care.

I I do not feel comfortable with a stranger providing my personal care.

I simply want domestic care.

And those domestic hours will be minimal.

Okay, so they're they're they're available, but they're not necessarily that's not their preference at the time, this type of service.

Correct.

Or you may have a recipient who home bridge has matched a provider with, and it is a positive relationship.

However, when the provider is not available, the, as I mentioned in the story, the recipients will simply just be adamant.

I only want Caregiver X to serve me, no one else.

And we will attempt to encourage, remind them of failure to get hours serve, how that could hurt them with their health, their medical state, how we want to prevent hospitalizations, and attempting to see if they are open to a substitute provider being dispatched.

And Home Bridge will dispatch a provider, but again, they the recipients simply may not open their door or simply just not be there.

Yeah, I think I absolutely recognize there's a lot of human challenges here.

I do think, though, for you know, for with the actual authorized hours being, you know, 54 percent, we're essentially not using half of them and paying for half of them.

Um so in the future, I would love more focus, and I'm sure this is something you think about a lot, but to share with us, I would love more focus on creative approaches to increase that number.

Um, you know, what other approaches other cities and other providers are taking, because again, it's just, you know, I I do think it's it's not something we're ever going to have at 100 percent, but um if we can get that to the target or closer to the target, it just is it's a lot that we're not utilizing in that ultimately that the people who need these services are not getting.

So any focus on that in the future, I would like to see.

Um regardless, um I'm really happy to see that the uh satisfaction surveys and scores are are quite high, and so that's um that's a good indication of the quality of service.

So thank you.

Understood.

And I will clarify.

For hours authorized, home bridge is only billing hours that they actually can fill or serve.

So even when a provider, when a recipient is refusing Home Bridge is not billing us for those hours.

Okay.

I think that was my um first question, so that gives some clarity.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

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

And on that motion, do we refer this resolution to the full board?

Member Sutter.

Soder, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have two ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving uh an agreement between the City and County Acting Bain through the Department of Disability and Aging Services and San Francisco in-home supportive services public authority for the provision of independent provider mode in-home support uh supportive services for a term of five years from July 1st, 2026 to June 30th, 2031, and for a total not-to-exceed amount of approximately 991 million, and to authorize the executive director of the Department of Disability and Aging Services to make necessarily no material changes to the amendment before its execution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And again, we have Department of Disability and Aging Services here.

Thank you, Chair Chan, Supervisor Salter.

The contract between San Francisco's Human Service Agency and the San Francisco IHSS Public Authority will allow over 96 percent of our IHSS recipients to continue to receive access to a provider registry through the public authority as well as mentoring services and a host of other resources and support, which allows our recipients to remain in the home and community setting of their choice.

Through the services offered through public authority, we are avoiding recipients from entering institutional placements and preventing premature emergency emergency room visits and hospitalizations.

Currently, IHSS is serving 30,000 active recipients, and again, 96 percent are using our independent provider mode services.

These recipients often present with less vulnerabilities than recipients that are referred to home bridge.

For example, recipients who are receiving services through public authority have the wherewithal and then the ability to act as an employer.

They can interview, hire, and supervise a caregiver to provide their needs.

They are also able to approve and oversee time cards, which is essential and something that many of our individuals cannot do, therefore we refer them to Home Bridge.

I am pleased to report that the public authority met and exceeded almost all of their objectives.

There were three related to the mentorship program that there was no data for, so we could not assess whether targets were met.

What will occur is that IHSS and public authority will evaluate these measures to determine whether data challenges can be mitigated so that they can be added back to the future agreement.

However, one objective that public authority is moving forward with with regards to mentorship is their footprint at Laguna Honda Hospital.

During the height of COVID, there were restrictions with public authority being able to make access to the facility.

Also, Laguna Honda lost their accreditation, which also prohibited public authority from moving forward with mentorship in fiscal year 24-25, which led to data not being available.

However, since the resurrection of the mentorship program at Laguna Honda, public authority has been has been working with public authority.

Laguna Honda has been working with public authority to identify residents who can step down from institutional placement back into the community.

However, I will say the identified identification of these residents have been slow on Laguna Honda's front.

But we will continue to do outreach to advise Laguna Honda residents of resources available to them in the community.

With the authorization of this contract, IHSS can continue to rely on public authority to meet the growing needs of our recipients.

Because as we know, the older adult of population in San Francisco is expanding.

We expect that the older adult population, 60 plus, to be one-third of the city's population by 2030.

So I respectfully re respectfully ask for this contract agreement to be approved.

Thank you.

Item 3 is a resolution that approves a new contract between HSA and the IHSS public authority to begin on July 1st, 2026 and run through June 30, 2031.

The contract has a value of 991 million point three hundred and ninety-one point three million dollars.

This contract is a little different than the grant with Homebridge.

It essentially just pays for the health and dental benefits of the about 30,000 IHSS workers in San Francisco.

You can see their performance on page 15 of the report.

These are really tracking administrative outcomes that the public authority is supposed to maintain an active registry and do background checks and make sure that people are offered benefits within certain time periods.

So it is not measuring the quality of the program in the same way as the other performance measures of the prior grant agreement we just discussed are.

You can see on page 17 of our report, the budget breakdown of this contract, 96 percent of spending is going to the health and dental benefits of the IHSS workers.

The contract also funds 32 staff at the public authority to administer the program.

This contract is uh 20 percent funded by general fund.

And the general fund spending on this contract and the prior grant are both part of a 200 million dollar requirement, uh spending requirement imposed by the State for the IHSS program.

So we do recommend approval of item three.

Thank you.

Thank you so much for your work.

I mean, I think that similarly to the previous contract with Home Bridge.

Uh we know that it is important to have your home service workers for the services provided, and uh we really appreciate it.

Um look forward to kind of learning a little bit more about also the evaluation similarly to home bridge contract in a future date.

Thank you.

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

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public common is now closed.

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

And on that motion to refer this resolution to the full board as recommended.

Member Sauter.

Sauter I.

Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have two eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call items four and five together.

Yes, item numbers four and five are resolutions retroactively authorizing the Office of Economic and Workforce Development to accept and expend grants from the California Natural Resources Agency.

Item number four is in the amount of five million for the preservation and revitalization of a historic LGBTQ plus venue that will advance economic development in the Castro neighborhood during the grant period of April 1st, 2026 through December 31st, 2027.

And item number five is in the amount of 50,000 for Americans with Disabilities Act restroom improvements at the Charity Cultural Services Center during the fiscal year of July 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2026.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

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

Good morning, Chair Chairman Member Souter.

Ben Van Houten from the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Um joined joined by my colleague Alessandra Lozano.

I am going to present on item number four and then hand it off to Alessandra to speak on item number five.

Um these are both uh uh uh general fund uh grants that were approved by the California legislature uh in SB 105, the State Budget Act last year, and um item number four is uh to support the preservation and revitalization of a historic LGBTQ plus venue in the Castro neighborhood to uh support economic development in the Castro.

Um both of these items have to be uh retroactive because the CNRA by state policy has not prepared uh grant agreements yet and actually won't do so until the approval uh of these resolutions.

Um this item specifically, we are requesting a one-week continuance while we continue to finalize uh some pieces with CNRA and um uh city stakeholders to ensure that we are uh effectuating the state's intent here.

Um and I am available for any questions.

Sorry, can you elaborate a little bit more again about uh the one-week continuance for item number four?

Yes, absolutely.

We are uh continuing to talk with CNRA to ensure that we are we are accurately capturing the state's intent in uh uh uh delivering this money, and we are also talking with the city attorney about some elements in the in the in the resolution itself, just to just fine-tuning a couple pieces.

And is this a logistically how the money is being actually distributed?

I'm sorry, uh could you repeat the question?

You're saying you're working out the details um with the state agency specifically about so my question is is it specifically about how the money is going to be distributed or that that is part of the conversation, yeah.

Okay.

Um Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you.

Um as for the the venue for this grant, has that been identified or how would that process go?

Um as proposed, this is uh would we have a uh request for proposals issued by our agency.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay, thank you.

Let's go to public comments on these two items.

I see uh both items, Madame Chair.

I don't know you you still have item number five.

My apologies.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Supervisor Sauter, Alessandra Lozano with the Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

This item before you today is a resolution retroactively authorizing OEWD to accept and expend a grant award in the amount of $50,000 from the State of California, the California Natural Resources Agency for ADA restroom improvements at the Charity Cultural Services Center during the fiscal year July 2025 through June tw June 30th, 2026.

Uh as my colleague Ben mentioned, the California State Budget Act for this item specifically, page 29, Section 23, line 25 designates these funds to the city and county of San Francisco for ADA improvement work at the CCSE, but it is not directly awarded to the CCSC.

Because OEWD has a current contract with CCSC whose scope fits within this project, OEWD is simply acting as the pass-through department for these funds.

As noted in the statement on retroactivity included in the legislative file and as previously stated, there is not yet an executed grant agreement between the city and CNRA.

Due to state rules and regulations, OEWD must first provide an adopted resolution by this Board of Supervisors in order for CNRA to execute a grant agreement with the city.

Charity Cultural Services Center is a community-based nonprofit that has been advancing workforce youth and community well-being in San Francisco for more than 40 years.

CCSC is seeking this funding to support the access and design for an additional ADA compliant restroom within their existing facility in District 3 on Commercial Street.

Due to limited available space within their building, specialized architectural and engineering design services are required to create a functional code-compliant ADA bathroom that maximizes efficiency without compromising accessibility.

This state funding will enable CCSC to engage qualified professionals for this work.

And I'd like to note that this funding will only be used for design and planning, not actual construction.

Thank you for your time and happy to take any questions.

Thank you.

And oh sorry.

Yes, just very quickly on item number five.

Thank you.

And uh you know, given that this is in my district, I understand the great work that Charity Cultural Services Center does.

Uh and uh I'm glad to see this grant moving forward.

I'll be supporting and just want to ask to be added as a co-sponsor, please.

Thank you.

Thank you, Supervisor.

Thank you.

Um what is the timeline of um for this grant?

Uh the timeline uh proposed in the uh in the resolution is I believe April through uh December of next year.

That's right.

And then um do we actually already have a venue?

The uh we are fully intending uh as proposed in here to issue a uh uh competitive uh RFP process.

Um and here it says that like know that only up to 15 percent of this grant will be amount to be used for indirect costs.

And what would the indirect cost be?

Um we haven't we would need to scope that out within the the scope of the agreement um uh worked out with the selected venue.

And is that was it is that what it is uh or that you're you need one week continuance because of that?

So to work out the some of the mechanics there and also some additional items with the city attorney.

Okay.

Um, I'm not trying to give you a hard time, but generally speaking, once you actually put it on the calendar, uh my expectation is that you really have it ready, that is ready to go, you don't need a continuance, and definitely not with like a state agency, right?

Like if you're requesting for an item to be scheduled to be heard and for approval, my expectation, or I think that generally like the committee expectation is that you actually have all your your dogs in the role and that you particularly from Grand T from Grantur that you actually have an agreement all set.

Um uh have a little bit of understanding specifically, because my assumption is that we're actually uh we're we're agree we're accepting the grant that which already have a grant agreement.

So do we not have a finalized grant agreement?

We don't know.

We need the resolution in place before we can get that.

And and just to your previous com uh comments, Chair, I I sincerely apologize for this being on the agenda and and and uh taking up your time with it.

No, no, it's okay.

I mean, I think that I just wanted to understand like is it a sudden, like unexpected um situation that you you you thought that it was all worked out and then suddenly that it you were just notified that it didn't quite go there.

And so I'm just kind of wanting to uh have a better understanding of like um like what is really the hold up and and can we really be expected to resolve within the week.

Yeah, I I I think we can resolve it in a week.

Um uh much of this uh uh came to pass in beginning conversations with the city attorney on parallel work over the last uh uh week.

So really I I'm optimistic we can resolve it, but but happy to to discuss more.

Could you please give us post it and just kind of like if there's things that if you can provide more details um in your conversation and that there's expectation that we couldn't have it resolved by next week, I just will please keep us in the loop.

Absolutely.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Thank you.

Um let's go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, we're opening public comment for both these items for well on the continuance of item four and uh item five.

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Um, I would like to be added as a co-sponsor to item number four.

So please do work out those details.

Um with that, um I would like to um send items four and five.

Oh, uh I would like to continue item four to our next meeting uh and a roll call, please.

And on that motion, uh, to continue the resolution as item four to the May 6th meeting of this committee.

Member Sauter.

Soder I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan I.

We have two ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, um I would like to move item five to full board with recommendation, a roll call, please.

And on the motioner for other resolution and item five to the full board with a recommendation.

Member Sauter.

Soder, I chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I.

We have two ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number six.

Yes, item number six uh is an ordinance appropriating one and a half million from the General Reserve to the public defender to support the projected increases in salaries and fringe benefits costs in fiscal year 2025 to 2026.

And this ordinance does require two-thirds approval uh of all members of the Board of Supervisors pursuant to the Charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have the public defender's office here.

Public defender, actually.

My apologies.

Uh good morning, Chair Chan and Supervisor Sauter.

I want to thank the mayor's office for sponsoring our supplemental.

Also, thank you to BLA representatives, Kerry Tam, Christina Malamut, and Nicholas Menard.

I want to thank the controller's office and our finance team for working to address this shortfall.

Before diving into the specifics of our supplemental request, I want to take a moment to talk about who we are and why this funding matters.

Our mission, vision, values, and theory of change not only represent what we do, but it's how and why we exist.

And on this slide, there's I want to emphasize the word excellence, because without high functioning public defenders, the constitutional muscle of our society atrophies, wrongful convictions happen, tragic family separation happens, and suffering members of our community don't get the services they need.

I want to give you a quick look at our current general fund fiscal year budget and how it is allocated.

Our budget is very lean.

Every dollar is deliberate and mission-driven.

The vast majority of our budget is allotted to staffing because our greatest resource is our people.

We're proud to have a powerful team of justice warriors and public health agents at the public defender's office.

Half are attorneys on the front line defending our clients in court, half are non-attorneys, equally critical to our work, including social workers, paralegals, investigators, and clerks.

All are essential to how we deliver people-centered defense and holistic services.

Every year, our office serves 20,000 indigent people in San Francisco.

100 percent of our clients are low-income.

They have no other option but us.

Many are living with mental health conditions, suffered complex traumas as youth, or are members of our society who have navigated historic systemic inequities.

A significant number are limited English speakers and/or immigrants facing an already complex system with additional barriers.

We represent 84 percent of all indigent defendants in San Francisco, and we're assigned cases directly by the court under the Sixth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution, the guaranteed right to counsel.

The budget inequities our office has faced are not new.

They have been accumulating for quite some time, but in recent years, these inequities have reached a tipping point, contributing to a full-blown workload crisis.

Across the board, our caseload has grown dramatically, while our resources have not kept pace.

There is a 56 percent increase in active felonies and a 78 percent increase in active misdemeanors.

This isn't a staffing problem, it is a funding problem, and it has real consequences for the people we serve and their families.

The workload crisis is here, the supplemental request is a step in our path forward.

Many city departments manage budget pressure by leaving positions vacant using salary savings as a buffer.

That's simply not an option for us.

Every vacancy is not a savings, but a constitutional obligation going unmet.

When we receive hiring approval, we move immediately.

Our data shows we consistently fill attorney positions within two to three months of receiving approval.

Leaving positions open doesn't just hurt our clients, it overloads our current staff with even higher caseloads.

Protecting capacity means protecting people.

With this context in mind, I want to walk you through our supplemental request because the ask is inseparable from the mission.

As I as I stated earlier, you know, we would be further compounding the crisis, the workload crisis, if we didn't move to fill positions quickly.

And that leads to unacceptable delays, not just for our clients and their families, but also witnesses, victims in all parties in the system.

This has led to a 1.5 million dollar structural shortfall in the current year, and we are thankful to the mayor for bringing forward this appropriation to address the short shortfall.

Departments that have the staffing depth to absorb vacancies without consequences as a smaller department, we don't have that cushion.

I can tell you, as soon as one is open, I have the managers tell me when can we fill it?

When can we fill it?

When can we fill that position?

We're not in a position to keep open to meet attrition goals.

That's why we're in the position we are in and appreciate this effort today.

Thank you.

And I think that I appreciate your conversations with the mayor and the mayor's office and only including with Director Um Sophia Kittler for this ongoing.

I do not see us I think that not just the public defender, but any departments that come to this body in a mid-year supplemental is not a good sign.

And that it means that there is actually more fiscal issues that we actually have to deal with in June, which I anticipate that's the case with the public defender as well.

And so I want to urge you to work with the mayor uh and figure out what your June budget proposal actually looks like.

I mean, you're in an interesting spot similarly to other elected like our city attorney, our district attorney, uh, and including our sheriffs.

You know, you're you all are uh respectfully like elected by the people.

I think that your conversation are different uh with the mayor uh and his team, and that you have an obligation to the voters and San Franciscans, uh, also again, yeah, in a different way that you will have to fulfill those obligations.

And so I urge everyone who are elected and facing this budget deficit uh and and to collectively uh help us problem solve.

Um it is a difficult situation and dynamics, and so how do we get through uh for the next two fiscal years?

Um, not to mention the potential um detrimental cuts coming from HR 1 should it come to reality in by this fall.

Um so I think it it is uh leaving us very little like good options.

Well, we have no good options.

Um I am grateful uh for your understanding.

I am grateful that you and your team are holding the line.

Um it's it's been difficult.

So I thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

And Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public commons, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion to refer to the full board for the recommendation, Member Sauter.

Solder, aye.

Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have two ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you so much.

And with that, um, Mr.

Clark, do we have any other item before us today?

Uh Madam Chair concludes our business.

The meetings adjourned.

SF Gov TV.

San Francisco government television.