Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the May 20th, 2026 meeting of the budget and finance committee.

I am Supervisor Connie Chan, Chair of the Committee.

I'm joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Matt Dorsey, and Member Supervisor Danny Souter and our clerk, it's Brent Haliba.

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

Mr.

Clark, do you have any announcement?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just a friendly reminder to those in attendance to please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent interruptions to our proceedings.

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

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

When your item of interest comes up 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 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, the budget and finance committee clerk at Br ENT.jsf G O V.org.

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

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

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

Carlton B.

Goodlit.

Place room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

And finally, due to our observance of Memorial Day, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors agenda of June 2nd, unless otherwise stated.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clerk.

And before we call to items on today's agenda, just want to remind everybody that for those items that have budget and legislative analyst reports.

And with the understanding now we are starting the process with both budget and finance committee and also we have budget and appropriation committee this afternoon.

We will limit public comments to one minute today.

Yes, item numbers one and two are legislation as it relates to the series 2026 A Healthy Safe and Vibrant SFGO bonds.

Item one is an ordinance appropriating 195 million of general obligation bond proceeds to the departments of public health, public works, recreation, and park, and the municipal transportation agency for acquisition and improvement of real property for various health care, nursing, and mental health facilities, certain transportation, pedestrian, street safety related capital improvements, streetscape enhancements, and other public space improvements and related costs in fiscal year 2025 to 2026, and placing these funds on controller's reserve pending receipt of bond proceeds.

Item number two is a resolution authorizing the issuance and sale of not to exceed 195 million aggregate principal amount of one or more series of the bonds on a tax exempt or taxable basis prescribing the form and terms of such bonds and any sub-series designation providing for the appointment of depositories and other agents, providing for the establishment of accounts and or subaccounts related, authorizing the sale by competitive or negotiated sale or private placement, approving the forms of the official notice of sale and notice of intention to sell bonds and directing the publication of the notice of intentions to sell bonds, the purchase contract, the preliminary official statement and execution of one or more official statements relating to the sale and continuing disclosure certificate, authorizing and appropriate and approving modifications to such documents, ratifying certain actions previously taken as defined, and granting general authority to city officials to take necessary actions in connection with the authorization issuance sale and delivery of such bonds as defined.

Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr.

Clark.

And today we start off with the controller's office of public finance.

Good morning, members of the committee.

Thank you very much for hearing this uh item, these two items this morning.

Um, before you, we have uh resolution uh approving the issuance and sale of the second series of general obligation bonds under the uh healthy, safe and vibrant San Francisco authorization from 2024, uh as well as an appropriation ordinance uh to appropriate the proceeds for the projects and the uh cost of issuance and oversight.

Uh so uh I'll speak briefly about the transaction and then I will uh pass this along to Department of Public Works, Department of Public Health, and uh Recreation and Parks Department to speak in a little more detail about the projects.

All right, uh to bring you up to speed on where things stand uh was a total authorization of $390 million devoted to public health, homelessness, street safety, and public spaces projects.

Uh last year, uh the board approved the first issuance of bonds under this program, and uh we issued uh 83.

uh six million to fund 82.6 million dollars worth of projects under public health, street safety, and public spaces, uh 62.1 for public health, 19.6 for street safety, and uh a little under a million dollars for public spaces.

Uh that was for the planning of the Harvey Milk Plaza project.

Uh and then today we're coming to uh before you to approve uh another 96.8 million dollars worth of projects to be funded for public health, 23.5 million dollars for street safety projects, and the full balance of the public spaces projects uh $69.4 million, uh which will leave uh approximately $117 million for the projects to be funded in a future issuance.

Uh these are the projects that we're uh going to be funding in this issuance, uh as you can see for the public health category.

It's uh Chinatown Public Health Center and City Clinic, as well as uh seismic upgrades at uh Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital Building Three, and then uh a suite of critical repairs projects at both Zuckerberg San Francisco General and Laguna Honda Hospital.

Uh the street safety projects are going to be the 11th Street Safety Improvement Project, 5th Street Streetscape Project, and Mission Street Repaving Project, and then the public space projects are uh the Powell Street Project and about 22 million dollars, a little less than that.

Harvey Milk Plaza, the full balance of the remainder, uh Holiday Plaza, about $9 million, and um Embarcadero Plaza and McLaren Park, which are recpark projects.

We expect a 20-year term of the bonds according to our municipal advisors' uh good faith estimate.

We have uh estimated true interest cost of about 4.86%, which translates to an average annual debt service on the 192 point uh point one million uh estimated par amount of about 15 million dollars per year.

And uh I can confirm that this proposed estimate is within the 3% charter limit on geo debt.

Uh would raise our total debt ratio from about 0.75% to 0.8%, which is well within the 3% uh limit.

And it's also consistent with the capital plan's fiscal 2006 tax rate constraint policy.

Uh we'll be able to maintain that tax rate constraint uh with this issuance as well.

Uh I already described the projects that we funded, and again, you're gonna get more detail on those uh from the upcoming speakers.

Our tentative financing schedule uh we uh obviously introduced uh earlier in April and May the supplemental and the sale resolution.

We were uh we went through capital planning committee hearing on May 11th, uh and they recommended the approval of these um of the of the sale.

We're here obviously today, and we're hoping if we can uh get approval by the board uh then we can complete the the issuance in July of 2026.

And with that, I will hand it over to Isabel Ochoa from the Department of Public Health.

All right, so we're requesting 45.6 million for Chinatown Public Health Center.

So this is a project to retrofit Chinatown Public Health Center as well as expand capacity for both primary care and dental services, and we'll be uh co-locating Chinatown Child Development Center from a lease site nearby.

And just a reminder that this is the only remaining SHR4 clinic in our network of clinics, so we're excited to get started.

Uh we are in the process of issuing a contract now and expect to begin construction in July 2026.

So the 45.6 million will fund the remainder of that construction contract, which isn't covered with the existing funds.

We're also requesting 4.1 million for city clinic.

So this is a project to relocate City Clinic from their current converted firehouse on 7th Street into a space that will allow them to have fully accessible patient care areas, an expanded lab, and just in general more modern facilities.

So the plan is to relocate them into 1660 Mission Street, where they'll have dedicated space in a shared building.

So we also plan to locate several behavioral health services into that building as well as several behavioral health administrative functions.

So the 4.1 million we're requesting will cover city clinic share of that acquisition cost.

We're in the process of issuing a design build contract now.

So the plan is to request uh funds for capital improvements and a subsequent issuance when design is further along and we can better document City Clinic share of those costs.

We're requesting 20 million for ZSFG building three.

Uh so this is a project to retrofit building three.

The goal here being to just add more seismically safe square footage to the ZSFG campus so that ZSFG can relocate staff from other unsafe buildings.

So this project is in design now.

We're requesting 20 million to fund continued design, and we currently would expect that amount to get us through to the bid and award phase, at which point we would request additional funds to fund construction.

So this is a very tentative schedule, but tentatively we're expecting that would be around fall 2027.

And then finally, we have 66 million allocated across uh nine different critical repairs projects, and then two million of that is held as contingency across all of them.

Uh so I've listed them all here.

I'll focus on the ones that are part of the second issuance.

For Laguna Honda, we're requesting funds for uh NPC five sewage containment and uh HVAC replacements.

Uh so both of these projects are in a similar place in that they are about to begin design.

So sewage containment wrapped up a feasibility study recently to inform which solution will work for the hospital, and then HVAC replacements, uh, the hospitals going through some assessments of the rooftop HVAC units to determine where it makes the most sense to start.

Uh for ZSFG, we're requesting funds for the building five fire alarm upgrades.

So we're requesting the remainder of the bond budget for this project.

Um, so that project's in design now, so this will fund uh implementation.

And then we're also requesting uh 9.8 million, which is the full bond budget for uh ZSFG Chiller and Cooling Tower.

Uh so this is a project that has other funding sources and is in construction now.

So this amount will fund uh the last part of this project scope, which involves bringing a new power feed to the hospital to supply the new chiller and cooling tower.

And this is a very high-level completion timeline for all of the critical repairs projects.

Of course, the ones that are part of the second issuance, you'll see on the second half of this screen to be completed last.

Um in 2028, we would expect to finish the fire alarm upgrade at ZSFG as well as the chiller and cooling tower replacement at ZSFG.

And then in 2029, uh we would expect to finish HVAC replacements toward the end of the year, as well as uh NPC sewage, which uh were required to comply with this new state requirement by 2030.

So there is some pressure to maintain that schedule and uh thank you, Isabel.

Good morning to Provisor Sambers Robertson, deputy director of financial management and administration.

I'll be talking about the next set of projects.

Uh, joining me today.

Should you have any specific questions or members of the public works team and the MTA?

We are requesting 23.5 million dollars of funding for projects in this category of funding.

And many of these projects, the geobonds before you today are leveraging other sources.

So the first project I'll talk about where we're asking for $2 million is for the Fifth Street Improvement Project.

And this project will make significant improvements for pedestrian and bicycle safety, provide ADA curb ramps and other streetscape elements on Fifth Street from Market Street to Townsend Street.

This location is on the street safety high injury network and is a priority for both the MTA and public works to make pedestrian and bicycle improvements.

The next project is a very complex project in the mission, and it is the mission street pavement renovation project.

This project will repave approximately 30 blocks of mission street from Cortland to Erie, which is right near to Bose.

And this project will not only repave the entire segment of mission street during the for those 30 blocks, we'll also make significant upgrades to curb ramps for ADA compliance, and we'll also include a jointly delivered project with the MTA and the PUCs so there will be some sewer upgrades in this corridor.

This complex project requires a lot of outreach with the businesses, stakeholders, and community partners, and so we've already started that project.

We're working as the design continues to strategically identify ways to minimize the overall impact so we can make sure that as we're doing our work, we can have bi-directional traffic going in both directions.

So, very exciting project.

This project will help the city maintain the what's called the PCI score, the pavement condition index score of 75, which is the highest in the Bay Area for any large city.

And for this project, we are asking for the full 19.8 million dollars.

The third and final project in the street safety segment is the 11th Street Safety Improvement Project.

The scope here is very similar to what I just outlined for the 5th Street project.

We're here the work will happen between Market Street and Bryant Street, also on the street safety high injury network.

And this project again will improve bicycle and pedestrian elements, it will make some street space improvements, also include curb ramp designs and new curb ramps.

It'll do additional ballbouts for pedestrian safety and make sidewalk improvements.

So two critical projects in SOMA and a critical project in the mission.

And for this one, we are requesting 1.7 million dollars to continue design and get into the pre-construction elements of the project.

And so moving on to the next category of projects, before I turn it over to my colleague from the recreation and park department, Stacey Bradley, I'll go through a few of the projects that we're seeking funding for here.

So the first project is the Powell Street Improvement Project.

This is a significant project.

We'll be making significant upgrades and improvements on Powell Street from the cable car turnaround on Market Street through Union Square.

This is going to include a lot of beautification and streetscape elements such as new sidewalks, new ballbouts, new ADA compliance, as well as some of the less visible and interesting elements such as improvements to some of the key sub-sidewalk basements along this corridor.

The project will include new lighting elements, which you can see in the photo that's on the slide.

And it will, in essence, improve the pedestrian experience for both pedestrians, bicycles, and people riding their cable car from Union Square into the downtown area.

It will also provide a nice gateway for folks and visitors and residents coming off of the Muni and BART at the station right there.

So we're requesting the full 21.8 million dollars for the overall project budget of 40.3 million dollars for this project.

The next project we're asking for a total of $8.9 million to complete design and start initial construction activity is for the Holiday Plaza Accessibility Improvement Project.

This project will make a lot of beautification landscape elements, but also provide significant improvements for ADA accessibility.

So the plaza and the surrounding streets and transit will provide a safe, welcoming and lively public space, but it'll also do some elements that will fix some problematic elements of Holiday Plaza, such as removal of the elevator on Market Street, and it'll provide a nice ADA compliant pedestrian ramp connecting the street level to the plaza level, something that has not been incorporated in Holiday Plaza.

There's also going to be a lot of smaller secondary improvements made to the plaza, and as I mentioned, there'll be a significant landscaping and pedestrian improvements to make it much more of a welcoming and inviting space.

And the final project before I turn it over to the recreation and park department, where we're asking for the full $23.9 million in this proposal before you today is for the Harvey Milk Plaza project.

And really, this project is an improvement to all elements of the Harvey Milk Plaza, including making a R exhibit for Harvey Milk and the LGBTQ community, as well as more core elements providing ease of access from the transit stop there.

It'll repave and re-landscape the Harvey Milk Plaza.

It'll improve the Muni access, and it will enhance accessibility, safety, and security throughout the entire plaza.

So a key project that we're about to enter into construction by the end of the calendar year.

And with that, I'll turn it over to Stacey Bradley to talk about the recreation and park projects.

Good morning.

I'm Stacey Bradley, the director of capital and planning at the recreation and park department.

The first project we have is the embarcadero Plaza and Sue Bierman Park Renovation.

This is the front door of our city connecting the ferry building, the bay, and downtown.

We are very excited to move forward with this project.

We are aiming for concept design approval this summer and starting construction at the very end of the year, beginning of next year.

The project includes connecting the both of these disjointed spaces with new multipurpose spaces for small and large gatherings, increasing the accessibility and connectivity through the pathway network, including landscaping and stormwater features, and then we'll also have a number of site amenities like seating, picnic areas, a fitness area, and a dog play area to ensure that the space is activated and engaging throughout the day and during large events.

We are leveraging other funding as well.

We have partnership funding of up to 22 million, approximately 22 million dollars, the almost 14 million dollars here, and then about four million dollars of other city funds.

Next, we have the John McLaren Park, Jerry Garcia Amphitheater.

This is a very special space for the city, and we are looking to help revitalize it.

We're going to add lighting in the restroom, paving uh replace bench seating, and to ensure that we're enhancing the safety and guest comfort of those who come to watch shows here, as well as improving the electrical capacity and connectivity for the stage to ease the burden on producers and make it an easier space to come out and play.

We will start this project when the funds are in hand and later this year.

The concept was approved last year, but we will start design this fall with the anticipated construction start in early 2028.

This project will be partnered with funding from the 2020 Health and Recovery Bond in the McLaren Park program.

That is it for us, and we are all available for questions.

Thank you very much.

Good morning, Nick Menard from the BLA.

Items one and two are two pieces of legislation pertaining to general obligation bonds.

One is a resolution approving the sale of up to 195 million dollars of general obligation bonds, and one is an appropriation ordinance to provide spending authority for the proceeds.

We have the projects on page four of our report and the fiscal impact on page six of our report.

This 195 million dollar debt issuance will result in about $300 million in total debt service over the 20-year life of the bonds.

That is not a general fund cost, it's repaid by uh property taxes.

The uh the transactions consistent with the city's financial policies to limit the total amount of debt and the property tax rate uh dedicated to general obligation bond debt service.

We do have two policy considerations in our report.

One is that there is uh $50 million uh as part of the voter authorization for this bond uh dedicated to homeless shelters that has not been part of the prior or proposed bond issuance.

HSH is still determining um the best use of that money.

And then the other policy consideration is that the board actually approved 194 million dollars last year from this same bond.

Only about eighty-three million dollars was issued uh in part because of delays um in securing a space to relocate Chinatown Public Health Center as it um is undergoing renovations and also delays in starting some of the street safety projects, but we do recommend approval of items one and two.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Souter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, for DPH, can you uh walk us through a little bit more about this?

Uh some of the line items of Laguna Honda, particularly the kitchen floor and pot washer, um, what those entail and how we get to those costs.

Um yeah, so for uh for potwasher, this is uh I'll also invite Ole Krasinski to join who directs all of the capital projects at Oguna Honda, but uh these all result from regulatory requirements.

So in the case of the kitchen floor, uh this was uh an issue that was noted by regulators because of uh moisture that's being trapped in the kitchen floor and required complete replacement to uh avoid any accidents, and then in the case of the pot washer is a commercial kitchen, and so you know, requires a lot of uh equipment to make sure that they can keep up with the demands of the hospital.

And Oleg, would you add anything?

Ole Korsunski here, uh executive director of capital planning and uh engineering and facilities at Laguna Honda.

These projects are uh complex because we have to maintain a functional operational kitchen to essentially keep operations going at Laguna Honda while we go into these replacements.

Uh the equipment is at end of life uh and it needs to be phased into our operations to essentially maintain existing uh workflows.

The kitchen floor is a complex project that required our full relocation of our existing kitchen.

We're currently reassessing uh the efficacy of that large project and potentially scaling it down and or changing how we approach it.

That's the that's where we're at now.

How large is the kitchen?

The kitchen is I think up to 100,000 square feet.

It is massive.

It is a huge operation supporting 630 residents uh and a thousand staff at this time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, this is first.

Let's start with um I have some questions.

Um let's start with the public works, um, specifically about um Halliday Plaza.

I think that's a combination, actually, for both Public Works and Wreckham Park.

Um I believe that there is also um previously a um a million dollars or more for the electrical upgrades for the space, or am I incorrect?

Holiday plaza.

Uh Supervisor Chan, I don't have that information readily at my fingertips.

I know there was some money given to some preliminary work around the elevator, but let me get back to you.

Yeah, is this the um I'll be.

I believe that may be an additional scope unrelated to the scope for this project.

Correct.

But let me get back to you and give you that information in some detail.

Yeah, I just want to understand a comprehensive like you know, approach to the space collectively, um, between public works and wreck and park.

Uh Holiday Plaza is a public works delivered project, and rec park has no involvement in this one.

Huh, interesting.

Okay.

Um good to know.

And uh let me then ask uh about the McLaren Park um Jerry Garcia Theater.

Um, help me understand that I know that for the bond when we went out, it was for five million dollars that Supervisor Safaye actually put it forward and to be included in there.

Um, and then now clearly is not the five million dollars and to afford that electrical upgrade.

Help me understand what happened there.

Well, we identified um this particular scope as being what is most needed at um Jerry Garcia Amphitheater.

So the million dollars plus the funding from the 2020 bond is able to deliver these critical improvements at uh Jerry Garcia Amphitheater.

Yeah, and they actually Sue Behrman was it included in the bond.

Well, no, Sue Beerman was um the uh Sue Beerman is connected to the downtown plaza um revitalization component.

Yeah, but what's uh remind me again though, I think that when you came before us for Soup Bearman accept and expand with the with um with the gift, um was bond dollars included at that uh fund uh presentation for funding sources?

We anticipated that we would have bond funding at that point.

And about 14 million dollars.

It was approximately, yeah.

And then because, but then it was not in the scope of the actual bond when we went to the voter, was it?

It was part, it was um it's very consistent with the different elements that were identified in the uh bond that went to the board that went to the board and to the voters.

So revitalizing downtown and making sure that the downtown core is um revitalized and activated.

And then how much was it for what was the power station upgrade part of the downtown revitalization?

Or was it separate and apart from the downtown revitalization for the Powell uh Powell cable car station?

Those well, those were all part of how of the bond collaboration for in revitalizing the downtown core.

And how much was it dedicated for the downtown revitalization originally went to the voter?

Was it 45 or 60?

Um I don't, do you know?

I think it was.

Uh I think that that category in total is about 71 million dollars, including in the suite of projects include Harvey Milk, Powell Street, Holiday Plaza, Embarcadero, and uh and McLaren.

And McLaren, yeah.

And so what happened what's gonna happen to the $5 million that was originally dedicated to McLaren?

Well, the um that the active recreation component for the five million dollars was then split between embarcadero and McLaren, so we were able to deliver what we needed to deliver at McLaren and then also deliver what we need to at Embarcadero.

So you took the you took the five million, you split the five million from McLaren, and then you allocated the McLaren money into into Empacodero.

Well, the McLaren money wasn't uh dedicated specifically to McLaren in the bond, it was identified as elements that could include um you know areas that revitalize the the city and provide activation and um have you know provide for ticket events.

I want to I want to actually go back and then let's actually search on the record for that one because I believe that it was specifically dedicated five million dollars for electrical upgrade for McLaren specifically, and I I just wanted us to be on the record about where we're at um that you know we're making a decision as a body right now to support this and that we have taken money from that was originally intended by the voters um for McLaren, and that's inclusive of the electrical co-upgrade, and now we're putting it into ambacodero.

Well, again, I'm pretty sure the um bond legislation explained that it was an operat it may that's the funding may go to McLaren.

I don't think it dedicated it completely committed us to delivering everything at McLaren.

However, the um because we're able to partner with the 2020 bond funding at McLaren that dedicated six million dollars.

We went through a visioning process with um the community created a package that we brought to the Reckon Park Commission last fall or last summer, and um that package included this funding that was going to be dedicated towards McLaren towards Jerry Garcia so that we were able to do what we um anticipated delivering at McLaren.

Look I don't mean to put you in on the spot and I don't mean it to uh you know to give you a hard time about this because it's actually a precise conversation that I have with Supervisor Ashra Safay about do we really need five million dollars for electrical upgrade for you know McLaren Park for the Jerry Garcia theater I I didn't think that he needs all five million dollars but I I and I understand that you know sometimes there's contingency and other plan uh work in place but I just want to be on the record about that so thank you um I don't have any other questions let's go to public comment on this item on these two side two items yes we are now opening public comment for both these items one and two if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee madam chair we have no speakers seeing no public comments uh public comment is now closed uh I see that um supervisor souter you're the co-sponsor of this item what is your will yes thank you I'd like to move this item forward to the board with four recommendations both these items item one and two a roll call please and on that motion by member solder that we refer both this ordinance and resolution to the full board vice chair dorsey aye dorsey aye member solder aye solder aye chair chan aye chan aye we have three ayes the motion passes thank you and Mr.

Clerk please call items three and four together yes item numbers three and four are resolutions approving the lease termination agreements for the following hand the seating county acting by and through its airport commission item number three is for terminal three boarding area F food and beverage concession lease six uh with gate seventy four inc and item number four is for the Harvey Milk Terminal one food and beverage concession leases in phases three and four uh lease twelve uh with HFF SFO uh TWLLC madam chair thank you and we have um SOO here thank you good morning the airport is seeking your approval for two lease termination agreements one with HFF SFO2 LLC in Harvey Milk Terminal 1 and the other with gate 74 Inc in Terminal 3.

The first lease was awarded in May 2017 and was set to expire this October it has been operated as a sushi rido concept in the Terminal 3 hub food court in March the tenant informed us that Sushi Rito's San Francisco franchiser entity unfortunately was closing permanently and filing for bankruptcy the second lease was awarded in December 2021 to construct and operate a Balboa cafe since it was awarded however construction costs are estimated to have increased 22% and labor costs are estimated to have increased 10 to 15 percent the tenant has requested to surrender the lease as the business deal is no longer financially viable and airport staff believes this will provide an opportunity to release the premises for a higher and better use to better serve the traveling public the agreement includes no payment or reimbursement to either party there was no BLA report as this did not rise to the level of their financial threshold but I am joined by our revenue development and management team for any questions.

Thank you I don't have additional question um we will go to public commons I don't have any name on the roster either I will we will go to public comments on these two items yes if we have members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding these items three and four that was your opportunity Madam Chair we have no speakers seeing no public commons public comment is now closed uh colleagues I would like to send these two items to full board with recommendation uh and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to refer both resolutions to the full board with the recommendation, Vice chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Solder, I, Chair chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call items five and six together.

Yes, items five and six.

Our resolutions approving amendments to the agreements between the city and county hacking by and through the department of Public Health and Richmond Area Multiservices Inc., and to authorize DPH to enter into amendments or modifications to the respective agreements that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the agreements or the resolutions.

Item number five approves amendment number one to provide integrated behavioral health and case management services at 15 of the high school-based wellness centers to extend the term by two years from June 30th, 2026 for a new term of July 1st, 2023 through June 30th, 2028, and to increase the amount by approximately 5.6 million for a new total amount not to exceed approximately 15 million.

Item number six approves amendment number two to provide peer-to-peer employment and peer specialist mental health certificate services to extend the term by three years from June 30th, 2026 for a new term of July 1st, 2021 through June 30th, 2029, and to increase the amount by approximately 19.1 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 48.2 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have Department of Public Health here.

Good morning, Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey and Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you for having me.

My name is Kamea Wong.

I'm the program manager for this contract under Children, Youth, and Family Services Behavioral Health.

I'm here today to seek your approval for an amendment to extend our contract with Rams for High School Wellness Initiative.

The high school wellness initiative program provides integrated behavioral health and case management services at all SFUSD high schools.

This amendment extends the term for two years for continuity of services from June 30, 2026 to June 30, 2028.

The amendment increases the not to exceed amount by just under 5.6 million, bringing the total just around 15 million.

Rams High School Wellness Initiative provides low threshold drop-in supports are embedded within SFUSD high schools for all students to access.

They provide a safe and confidential space for students to build skills to cope with a variety of concerns.

They provide outreach, help promotion, screening, assessment, individual and group therapy, case management, and crisis intervention.

They include an ability for high school wellness staff to engage a smaller number of medical beneficiaries for longer term services for specialty mental health.

They are contracted to serve 750 students per year to low for low threshold wellness services, including 25 Medical beneficiaries for per year for longer term treatment.

I want to add that this is a very successful program and year to date they have already exceeded this number and are close to serving 1,000 students.

Here you can see they try and make the high school wellness a warm and welcoming space.

The BLA recommendations are threefold.

One to request DPH to reassess program performance for fiscal year 2324 and undertake complete program monitoring for all funded programs in subsequent years.

We agree with the recommendations and will reassess fiscal year 23-24 monitoring alongside comprehensive monitoring for ongoing fiscal years.

Second, to request DPH and SFUSD to report back to the Board of Supervisors by June 1st, 27 on the implementation of participating in the state's children and youth behavioral health initiative and fiscal impact to city funded school-based behavioral health programs.

We will come back by June 27 to provide an update on this implementation.

And third, to approve the proposed resolution.

Thank you, and happy to answer any questions.

Item five is a resolution that approves an amendment to the TPH contract with Rams to extend the agreement through June 2028.

The contract funds behavioral health programming at 15 high schools, which we list in the report.

We reviewed the program monitoring report that DPH completed for fiscal year 2324, and it did not evaluate all elements of all the programs.

We did get some supplemental information from DPH that gave us confidence that the programs are functioning well.

But that's why one of our recommendations is for DPH to go back and reassess the 2324 program monitoring and to make sure that all funded programs are monitored going forward.

We show the budget for the contract on page 17 of the report.

It's about 2.8 million dollars a year.

About 75% of that is funded with local funds, the general fund and children's baseline.

The substance use disorder portion of this program will be reduced starting next year as part of an overall uh reduction across all DPH Rams contracts of 1.3 million dollars.

We also note as a policy consideration that the school districts actually eligible to participate in a state program that provides school staff or community mental health providers who are serving uh who are providing behavioral health programming within schools to basically build the state for that work.

Uh the school district is not participating in that program.

Uh it could there are 160 other school districts that are in California.

It's a relatively new program, so they're just setting up the infrastructure now to be able to collect insurance documentation and set up a billing relationship with the state.

But I do think that this could be a significant revenue source to offset both the city's general fund deficit and the school district's general fund deficit.

So we do recommend that the department and the school district report back to the board by June 1st of next year on implementing their ability to bill the state for school-based mental health programs.

And we do recommend approval of item five.

Thank you.

And um, if I I just kind of I think that's what I heard you said that you do uh you are in agreement with the recommendation with the budget and legislative analyst.

Could you just elaborate a little bit of like then how would you approach um the recommendation?

Sure.

Uh the um, we agree with the BLE recommendations, and we will assess the fiscal year 2324 monitoring.

Uh RAMS is actually performing very well.

There were a few issues that contributed to data discrepancies, so their performance was not accurately reflected.

Um Rams had changed their internal database, generating an accounting issue for fiscal 2324.

Um, they are contracted units for service uh for mode 15 and mode 45 were not reflective of actual services delivered or invoiced.

Um SFDP neglected to include individualized objectives for mode 45 in the fiscal 2324 monitoring and omitted the mode 15 uh contracted numbers for service 24, 25, and 2526 are fine.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chen.

I just wanted to tease out if I could, and maybe this is um for Mr.

Minard.

In terms of the medical reimbursement from the schools, the issue that you're identifying is that the school district needs to report back to us for help me understand that.

Yeah, so there's it there's this new state program uh that it's just been implemented a couple years ago.

It allows schools to basically build the state with this new fee schedule for things like not just individualized therapy but mental health promotion um group work.

Uh and so there's it there's the many schools now are participating in the program across the state.

There's about 160 schools that are participating in that program.

You can be school staff, or you could be a community mental health provider like RAMS to receive reimbursement from the program.

And it'll also allow schools, it doesn't just you can be part of you can be on Medi-Cal or you can be on private insurance.

So regardless of how you're insured, uh the state will reimburse.

There, I from talking to DPH, there's I think some work that needs to be done to make sure that there's a system in place to obtain insurance documentation and then the parental consents necessary to participate in the program.

But it would, this is a new revenue source that is essentially providing like mental health care for all children across California once this is fully implemented.

Okay.

Could I ask DPH, is there work that the Department of Public Health could do to support the school district in its billing?

Yes, so I've been um working with SFUSD to follow up on their cohort, which their cohort five for this B uh CYBHI billing.

I have also worked with Rams to connect them with the third party administrator as well as the electronic health record administrator to make sure that this is financially sustainable for both SFUSD and for our community behavioral health partners.

We're just in the early phase, the school district are is just billing back from February of this year, and so we're learning to see how much we're getting reimbursed and for what type of services.

Do we know is this going to be something that um is captured in some of the changes that is that are coming to Medicaid at the federal level starting January 1?

That I'm not sure of.

Okay.

Okay.

I just wonder is are we waiting too long to have a report from June to June of next year?

Should we be looking at something sort of an intra interim?

I don't know who who maybe we could take it offline or something, but it would I'd be I would be interested to see how we're doing at an interval maybe before next June, if that's possible.

I'm happy to reach back out to your office with that information.

Yeah, I I would defer to TPH on the cadence of reporting, perhaps by the end of the calendar year would be an appropriate check-in.

Okay, thank you.

And so with that, let's go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, if we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee regarding these items uh five and six.

Now is your opportunity.

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public commons, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to send these two items um to fulboard with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to refer to the full uh both items to the full board with a recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Soder, I chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item seven and eight together.

Yes, item number seven and eight are resolutions approving agreements between the city and county acting by and through the department of public health and the San Francisco Community Health Authority, and to authorize DPH to enter into amendments or modifications to the respective agreements that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the agreements or their resolutions.

Item number seven is to provide administrative functions for the healthy San Francisco program for a total term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2023, for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 41.6 million, and item number eight is to provide administrative functions for the San Francisco City option for a total term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2030 for a total not to exceed amount of approximately 42.7 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have um Department of Public Health again.

Yes, thank you.

Uh good morning, Chair and Supervisors.

I am Stella Chow, Director of Managed Care with the Department of Public Health.

I am here today with Tangering Brickham to obtain your approval to with for two contracts with the San Francisco Community Health Authority, doing business as San Francisco Health Plan.

The city's healthcare security ordinance passed in 2006, led to the creation of two programs.

One is the Healthy San Francisco program, another one is the SF City Option Program.

The Healthy San Francisco program is a health access program that is largely funded by the general fund to provide medical and behavioral health services to the uninsured San Franciscans.

Unlike the Healthy San Francisco program, the City Options Program is funded by the employer contributions.

It offers medical reimbursements to employees whose employer have chosen to contribute to the city programs option, city option program to comply with the healthcare security ordinance.

Today our goal is to obtain your approval for these two contracts for a term of four years each.

Starting July 1st, 2026 through June 30, 2030.

This private nonprofit providers network includes 15 non-DPH clinics.

Through this contract, Department of Public Health will continue partnering with these providers to provide primary care, specialty care, hospital and pharmacy services based on the number of assigned program participants each month and the services they offer.

This contract also covered ambulance and gender health services.

How we develop this budget is that we're using the maximum number of participants the provider have agreed to accept in their caring contract.

We also look at the utilization data for pharmacy ambulance services, as well as gender health services.

In addition, we also factor in the medical policy changes that could impact the membership of this program.

When comparing this proposed contracts to the prior four years contract, we will see a hundred and seventy percent budget increase.

This is due to two reasons.

One is the increase in projected membership due to medical policy changes.

Second is the rates we are we will be paying the providers have increased.

Before I turn this presentation over to Ms.

Brickham, I would like to uh we would like to request two non-substantive amendments to the resolution for file 26, 03A9.

Would you like me to read the amendments into the record?

I do, and do we have copies of the amendment?

Um, yes, I believe so, yeah.

We do.

I don't think that we do.

It's on page one.

Um we provided them to the clerk a couple weeks ago.

They should be in the legislative record.

Uh but go ahead to read that.

Okay.

On page one line five, we would like to delete provide administrative functions and add pay private network providers.

On page one line 13, we would like to delete provide administrative functions and add pay private network providers.

With that, I will turn this presentation over to Ms.

Brickham to talk about the San Francisco City option.

Uh agreement.

You should email it to us if you haven't emailed it to us.

So I'm sorry, could you actually go back exactly which item you're making amendments to?

File number two six zero three A9.

So that's item seven.

Yes.

Yes.

And you're sorry, and walk us through the amendments again.

Did you email this to us?

I don't see that that we have the email.

We have electronic.

Yes.

You repeat that again, please.

Well, sure.

On page 195, we would like to delete provide administrative functions to add pay private network providers.

On page one line thirteen, we would like to delete provide administrative functions and add paid private network providers.

Could you walk us through why the amendment?

I think it's just an error we've made.

Because previously, there are two contracts for the healthy San Francisco.

One is for the administrative function, another one is for the private network providers.

But that was in the last round of contracts.

That it was not replaced.

And my apologies for uh these errors.

Yeah.

So I will turn it, turn it to Tangerine.

Thank you.

Good morning.

Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey Supervisor Souter Tangerine Brigham, I'm the Chief Operating and Strategy Officer for the San Francisco Network with the San Francisco Department of Public Health.

And I'll be talking about the second item, file number 26090.

If I can.

Then so those are more internal functions, and then in terms of more customer-facing functions.

They subcontract out for the medical reimbursement accounts that includes the submission of claims, the reimbursement of those claims that are contributed by employees, outreach to employers and employees, and call center and customer service.

We wanted to indicate that you know we think it's very important for the San Francisco Community Health Authority to do its due diligence in working in uh with a vendor for the medical reimbursement accounts.

And so to ensure that we are getting uh I'll say the best deal.

Um we have worked with the San Francisco Community Health Authority for them to issue what we're calling a request of interest to see are there other in vendors out there who are interested in this work, and then based on the response, um, two things will be decided.

If there is not interest, then we'll continue with the existing uh vendor and just make sure we do our consistent contract and performance monitoring.

If there is interest, then we'll work with the San Francisco Community Health Authority by June of 2027 to issue an RFQ where entities that are interested in this work would submit um proposals documenting their ability to perform the activities that are needed, which would create um a list of qualified vendors for the San Francisco Health Authority for the MRA vendor.

Um that concludes uh the presentations of both myself and my colleague Stella Chow, and we respectfully request approval of these items.

Thank you very much.

Item seven and eight are two uh resolutions approving two new agreements uh between DPH and the San Francisco Community Health Authority, which is a government entity that's uh distinct from San Francisco.

One of the agreements is for 41 million dollars, which is to reimburse um non-DPH uh providers uh of healthy San Francisco uh care.

Uh and one is a $52.8 million contract that provides the funding for the health authority to to third party administration for medical reimbursement accounts that are established uh by um the healthy health care security ordinance.

So you can see on page 21 the private provider contract is about 8.9 million dollars a year starting next year.

That is funded by the general fund.

Um, and those costs are really driven by the provider rates that DPH establishes for the healthy San Francisco network, as well as participation in the program, which is expected to increase due to uh recent changes to medical eligibility this year.

The um medical reimbursement account contract is 11.1 million dollars a year.

That's to administer the entire MRA infrastructure, which we discussed in the report.

That is not a general fund cost, that's funded by interest earned on the medical reimbursement uh account pool uh of unspent funds.

There's about a 930 million dollars of unspent medical reimbursement account funds, about 600 million dollars are accounts that have been established, and about $300 million are accounts that are money that's been deposited uh into the health authority because they're because of the requirements to do so under the health care security ordinance, uh, but that no one has claimed yet.

DAPH has undertaken an outreach effort over the past year uh to have more people claim their funds.

Um, but there it also established uh a policy to take funds that had not been claimed or touched uh within three years or in the past three years.

In December, the amount of the transfer was estimated in the joint report to be 274 million dollars.

That number is probably going to be lower, I'm told, because of DPH's outreach efforts, uh, but that transfer will occur in August of this year and offset the general apportion of the general fund deficit that's been projected.

But we do recommend approval of both these items.

We also have an amendment just a clarifying amendment to both uh resolutions, which is that these contracts are four-year contracts.

They they each have a one six-year option to extend.

That's not stated in the resolution.

The terms of the contract usually are.

So we recommend adding that to each resolution.

The not to exceed amounts of in each resolution are built on the projected expenditures for the initial four year term.

Um so if the department exercises the extension options, they will likely have to come back to the board under the charter.

Thank you.

Are the six years option uh for both items?

Yes.

Thank you.

Um, could I call back DPH?

So I help me understand that for these both contracts.

So I understand you have uh administrative or sort of like a technical error that you want to amend for item seven, but can you also help me understand then are there accepting are you accepting the recommendation by the budget and legislative analyst uh to amend the proposed resolutions both of them to clarify that the agreements have option to extend for additional six years?

Yes, we do accept the BLA's recommendation.

That's great.

Um except I think that we need to have the language for for both resolution um with those clarifying language, but it seems like there hasn't been worked on by the PH to provide that language for today.

We will give that to the clerk of the board uh immediately after uh this meeting uh to clarify both the technical and errors that were made in the original submission indicating that for the healthy San Francisco provider payment that it was administrative services or administrative functions, it's not for administrative functions, it's for the provider payments, and we will add uh the recommendations from the BLA's office.

Great.

The the good thing that I have good news.

The good news is that we actually do have a meeting next week for budget and finance.

We could continue these two items to next week where when you actually are prepared with those uh I know it's a technical amendment, but um, or we could I I'm gonna look to our deputy city attorney to give us some options.

Thank you.

Um Deputy City Attorney Brad Russian I want to make sure that the department is okay with this, but what I think the BLA is recommending um, for example, I think both of them are the same in the long title on line six for of the first resolution, it says for a total term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2030.

After that, adding with a six-year option to extend.

Yes.

In the long title, and then that also the same language about the term appears on line 16 and 17.

So we would add the same clause after June 30th, 2030, with the six-year option to extend.

And the same amendments would apply to the the other file.

And so um I just want to clarify.

So are we suggesting that, and which I'm fine if we're we're if we are comfortable, I'm which I am comfortable to amend both resolution as provided and read out loud by both the department and yourself.

I'm happy to amend according to according so and then move the two items as amended to full board.

I know we do not have it.

It we it doesn't not seem like we have a written like form uh written amendments.

I'm comfortable with that.

If the clerk is we this also could be done at the full board, but to avoid that, we could I think it's okay to do it today.

It's a really minor amendment.

Yeah, yeah.

It's not substantive.

No, this is just reflecting what the agreement in the file says.

Now I'm looking at uh clerk.

Are you comfortable with that?

Uh, yes, madam chair.

Thank you so much, Mr.

Clerk.

So thank you.

We'll go to public comments on these two items.

And before I go to uh before I do that, I do appreciate the uh intent that you clarified the intent for both to actually go to an RFI to for request for information.

Just because it has not been for the last 10 years, it has not been a competitive bidding process for this contract.

I do understand it is a third party and it's not us as a city that be able to oversee um this process, but I do appreciate the the effort and the intent uh that articulate it today publicly.

We would certainly appreciate and we understand and we agree with this approach.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair.

Um I have a number of questions on thank you on item number eight.

Um just first to to get a sense of who we're working here with.

This uh so it's a third-party administrator, um, so this is not uh uh city entity.

What what is the like the subcontractor, the company's name that that we work with on this?

That the that the San Francisco Community Health Authority for the MRAs, or for that's the well, the third party administrator for the city option is the San Francisco Community Um Health Authority, which does business as the San Francisco Health Plan.

It does subcontract um for the MRAs, and the vendor for that is health equity, uh formerly known as wage works.

Okay.

And so when we see the 52 50 52 FTE, are those within the city departments, or that's that's contracted out to health equity?

No, that's the San Francisco Community Health Authority.

So the San Francisco Community Health Authority, which is uh the San Francisco Health Plan.

Um, they have a call centered, they do all the employer portal, they do the IT, they do the communications, um, all of those kinds of activities, their staff are included in the 50.

It's not any of the wage work staff or I'm sorry, health equity staff.

Would you be able to provide a breakdown of those 50 kind of their particular roles?

Yes.

Yeah, I mean, I I know this is not apples to apples, but on item seven, you know, it just it it irks me a bit to see that we're spending more on the administration, administrative functions in item eight than we are in in the providers itself in item seven.

I know it's not not the same, but uh I'm just the the large administrative cost, uh I'm just curious about that.

It seems seems high.

Um, and then in terms of the funding source, it I mean the funding source.

Does that create some sort of perverse incentive because we're we're being we're getting this funding from uh interest in balance that is not being used for what we wanted it to be used?

I mean, have you wrestled with that?

Um a couple of things just to clarify.

Um the item seven is for the Healthy San Francisco program, just a component of the program.

That's a different program than the San Francisco City option.

So it what we would we could certainly provide the overall cost of the Healthy San Francisco program, but those costs are the department's clinical costs of providing services, our private provider network, administration of the program.

So they're they're different programs.

So just wanted to clarify um that uh in terms of um the source of the funds, the last issue you raised.

I mean, I think that we uh we believe that it's important to you know maximize to the extent possible um the funding, the general fund for um those areas where um there isn't another source of funding.

Um we have another source of funding for the administration of the city option, which is using the interest earned on those funds that have yet to be spent.

Um I will tell you that our latest figures are that individuals are using uh the accounts.

We know that at least my last look of it is about 205 million.

Um, so it's gone down considerably as we have increased our communication to individuals, and they've wanted to use those dollars to pay for expenses that they might have.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you.

And so uh with that, let's go to public comments on these two items.

Yes, right.

Now, opening public comment for both these items seven and eight.

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 amend to the both items to clarifying the additional six-year term.

Uh that was recommended by the budget and legislative analyst and also amend item seven as proposed by Department of Public Health.

Should I assume that actually that language applies to both?

Yeah, and the and the language that's specifically proposed by Department of Public Health recognizing the third party for both item seven and eight, and with that uh to send the amended items to full board with recommendation uh and a roll call, please.

And on that motion to accept the amendments as so offered by the department, and also accepting the um also amending both to accept the uh BLA's recommendations.

And to refer both resolutions to the full board uh as amended.

Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I, Member Sauter, Sodder, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Um, colleagues, my apologies.

I just want to have a clarifying point, and if I may go back to just item number one to for a clarifying point about the Holiday Plaza Um scope of that work, that just wanted to clarify, and if I may, could we uh call item one again?

Actually, if we're gonna discuss uh item one, we will need to uh rescind the uh the vote on the uh I just wanted for discussion only.

I do not need action to be retaken.

Do I still need to resend the vote?

Uh yes, madam chair.

Sorry, my apologies.

I do need to discuss it.

Understood.

And uh yeah, we could take the motion to rescind without objection.

If I may, yes, with our rejection with our objection.

Thank you.

Yes.

And uh item one is the ordinance uh appropriating uh 195 million of geo bonds uh to the Department of Public Health, Public Works, Correct Park, and municipal transportation agency.

And to place those funds in controllers reserved pending receipt of the bond proceeds.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And um I just want to call back on like Department of Public Works and Rackham Park, and and my apologies that my questions were not clear enough.

It was simply because again, uh I think we have a new website here.

Um I think as RET Park may recall that is the Jolly B location, which then rec park like has a multiple jurisdiction with Department of Public Works, that you leasing out that space.

That you I I haven't emailed you the legislation that is specifically for license to enter and use for for Jolly B.

Yes, it's um our understanding that we uh like we do permits for um recreation activities at Halliday, and all other activities are under um public works and the does it and the director of property for what happens at Holiday Plaza.

So that um when there's something, when there's a lease signed, it's it's our understanding that Bracken Parks uh you know signs off as a as a reviewer, not as a uh not necessarily as the owner.

That's fine, but I am asking the question is with the scope of this um holiday plaza right now that we have approved uh roughly you know uh eight point nine million dollars worth of it what I also do understand is that there was part of this licensing was also authorizing Jolly B to actually do electrical work and upgrade in that space in their space and that I I just kind of want and they're anticipated to actually finish that work and they're supposed to open I think in June of this year and so I'm just trying to understand then now like Department of Public Works is also doing this work with literally across from this and I'm just trying to understand and you're saying that your timeline is that to start so now you're actually having this this vendor that you lease out going to open in June and within a year there's a there's gonna be construction happening across the street so I'm just trying to understand and it seems like there's not even like a conversation or maybe there is conversation about how this project is going to impact in that corner and and design wise like in in collaboration of both Jolly bee in that space and also right across the street sure so I'm going to hand that over to public works because they're managing that project and Bruce has some information.

Wonderful thank you supervisors um in the short window we were able to get some information we're still waiting to get additional information from the real estate department but yes you are correct approximately two years ago there was an agreement between the Board of Supervisors and I believe it's Honeybee with uh the DBA being the Jolly Bee restaurant and there was a small easement for a gas line I think it was 414 feet so that is the reason for that easement public works under the public works code has jurisdiction to sign off and approve all easements and that was our involvement in that and I've got the PM here on this project who has been working in close collaboration with the real estate department to make sure that there is no impact to that easement and the gas line and we've been working collaboratively as I stated on the mission street project but with this one as well as we do for all of our projects with any businesses stakeholders and any interested parties in the area so we have been working about there working with those individuals and making sure that we can minimize any of the impact so to that end in the time we were able to get some information I don't have all of the information at this moment in my fingertips but that is the update that we can provide and the the easement was actually not in holiday plaza it was on the top in close proximity to that so that also is is part of it I did speak with the PM who again is here to answer any specific questions she is aware of it.

We have been working with the real estate department on that as well.

Thank you I so appreciate it I think that I was just I I just wanted to understand the collaboration and the planning for this project because it's it just it seems like they're opening so soon and then and then before they know it then there's construction like right across the street and and rather a grand scale but it's good that clearly area needs love and it's been been long needed and and I I just eager to see and wanting a close conversation a collaboration conversation with the with the vendors that's the city leased out and being able to um improve that space with with some planning and collaboration.

And supervisor you have my word that that collaboration is happening.

Thank you I appreciate that and so with that my colleagues I my apologies that if we thank you so much for indulging me for getting the uh answer on the record and so with that would like to um move this item oh supervisor souter would you like to move the item to a full board my apologies yes I will uh move it again we'll move uh item number one to the full board with recommendation and a roll call please and yes uh on that motion uh to send item one to the full board vice chair dorsey.

Dorsey, I.

Member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter, I.

Chair chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, do we have any other business before us today uh madam chair that concludes our business.

Just wanted a reminder, we do have our pub uh our budget and appropriation committee uh with all the enterprise agencies starting at one thirty today, and this meeting is adjourned.