Good morning.

The meeting will come to order.

Welcome to the May 27, 2026 meeting of the budget and finance committee.

I'm Supervisor Connie Chan, chair of the committee.

I am joined by Vice Chair, Supervisor Matt Dorsey and Member Supervisor Danny Sauter.

Our clerk is Brent Halipa.

I would like to thank Jamie Evercherry from EssexGov TV for broadcasting this meeting.

Mr.

Clark, do you have any announcements?

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

Should you have any documents to be included as part of the file, this 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 B R E N T.j.

Sf G O V dot O R 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 1.

Dr.

Carlton be good at place.

Room 244, San Francisco, California, 94102.

And finally, 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 today we will be limiting our public comments to one minute.

And that would like to remind the public that we have our budget and legislative analyst reports for most of the item today.

So the way it works will be we will have the department presentation first, followed by the budget and legislative analyst.

Then this committee will take questions.

And then we will go to public comments after all the discussion.

So with that, Mr.

Clark, please call item number one.

Yes, item number one is an ordinance amending the business and tax regulations code retroactively to January 1st, 2026 to extend for 10 years to December 31st, 2035, an exemption from the parking tax and certain related requirements for a limited number of special parking events operated by volunteer-led nonprofit organizations on school district property to benefit school uh San Francisco public schools and earning less than 10,000 per event from rent.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And before I call on the Office of the Treasurer and Tax Collector colleagues, I would like to make a brief remark just to kind of provide context of this legislation and how it came about.

Um this legislation um or uh this ordinance reauthorizes and extends an existing long-standing exemption that allows parent teacher association to operate limited parking events on San Francisco Unified School District property without being subject to the property tax uh uh without subject to the property parking tax.

Um the prior authorization expired at the end of 2025, so this legislation reenacts the program retroactive to January 1st, 2026 and extends it through December 31st, 2035.

The program is narrow in its scope.

Events must occur on San Francisco Unified School District property.

The proceeds must exclusively benefit San Francisco public schools.

The revenue from any individual event is capping at $10,000.

So the fiscal impact is minimum based on reasons reporting, foregone parking tax revenue has not exceeded 30 3,800 in any given year.

So with that, we'll go to the um our office of treasure and tax collector.

I think you covered it great, so I'm happy to take any questions if you have any.

My apologies.

No, no, that's great.

You covered all the bases yeah thank you.

Uh I don't see any questions, I don't see any name on the roster.

Thank you so much for being here.

Um, and thank you so much for your work on this.

We really appreciate uh you keeping track and making sure that we're we're made aware um about this exemption and the and the expiration and scope.

Thank you thank you uh with that, let's go to public comments on this item.

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

If we have any members of the public who have joined us today who wish to address this committee madam chair we have no speakers seeing a public commons public comment is close and colleagues I think again this I would say that uh largely for us uh particularly is uh for for schools that are impacted uh by events inclusive like beta breakers or outside lands and other concerts particularly on the west side um and I just want to make sure um I'm transparent about uh also how it benefits uh the West side in our district particularly and so with that let's I would like to move this item to full board with recommendation and a roll call please and I motion to refer this ordinance to the full board with recommendation vice chair dorsey Dorsey I member Sauter solder I Chair Chan I Chan I we have three ayes the motion passes and Mr.

Clerk please call item number two yes item number two is an ordinance waiving the competitive solicitation requirement under the administrative code and authorizing the director of the department of public works to retroactively enter into uh an agreement a grant agreement with the transgender district in the amount of approximately 24.5 thousand for the purposes of printing and installing placemaking banners in the transgender district in the southeastern tender line head along sixth street south of market madam chair thank you and colleagues um I would uh this is my intention to uh actually continue this item for uh to next week um because we're waiting for a copy of the grant agreements to make sure that we are transparent and that we have those records on file um but if I understand I think that there is um the transgender uh transgender district um ex co-executive directors are here to make brief remarks for the item thank you good morning supervisor chan supervisor dorsey my name is Brianna McCree I'm co-executive director of the transgender district we are here to talk about our banners and our fee waivers um also I have to say the transgender district was founded in 2017 to highlight the deep rooted history here in San Francisco thanks to Susan Stryker and uncovering the history of the Compton's cafeteria riots which is this year's 60th birthday please come celebrate with us this Friday shameless plug um today the district serves as both as a cultural hub and community safety net for trans and nonbinary folks we focus on wellness name and gender change clinics um our entrepreneurship accelerator program to support especially black and brown people within the transgender district the banner oh I'm out of breath so damn the banners pose as a sense of pride for people living in the tenderloin but also people that visit the transgender district just this year I attended the Harome Bay conference and got a chance to take black people in philanthropy on a tour of the transgender district to highlight the work that we do but to show them the sense of pride that these banners within the tenderloin show that transgender life is not only thriving but also supported here in San Francisco I please honor you to please help us away this fee so we continue continue our placemaking efforts within San Francisco to highlight not only the brilliance but the success of transgender life that the transgender district helps to promote along with the city and our community partners.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I am uh co-sponsor of this, and I just want to express my appreciation to the um transgender district.

Um, not just because this is a moment in time when the community is just particularly under siege in American politics, that I think it's more important than ever that we take make a stand for visibility.

But as a gay man, I also feel really important.

It is really important for the LGBTQ plus community at large to recognize and celebrate the founding role that the transgender community played in our movement, um, not just at Comptons, but at Stonewall and elsewhere.

So as somebody who repres represents a small portion of the transgender district, I really appreciate the work you're doing, and I'm happy to be a co-sponsor of this.

Thank you.

So appreciative of you.

Thank you.

And so then with that, we will go to public comment on this item.

Or the continuance.

Yes, we are now opening public comment on this item number two.

Uh if we have any members of the public wish to address this committee.

Yeah, no.

Yeah.

Okay, hello.

Um, my name's Leah McGeever, I live in D6.

I also live in the transgender district itself.

Um, and I'll just share why visibility uh is so important when my wife, who wasn't my wife at the time when we moved to um downtown in the district, uh, she was unknowingly closeted because she was abused as a child when uh her mother figured out that she was trans.

And so when we moved into the transgender district and saw those flags, that did trigger something in my wife, and she said to me in front of our new home that we just bought, that when I was little, I wanted to be a girl.

And I said, I don't think that feeling ever goes away.

And then she came out to me a few months later.

So visibility is very important, especially now as we are, as my supervisor Dorsey, Matt Dorsey has said, under severe attack in this country.

Um, you should actually be giving all this shit to us for free.

Thank you much, Liam McGaver.

Next speaker, please.

Hi.

Visibility.

When was the first time you felt truly seen?

Was it on TV, in a book, by your peers, or more importantly, by your city.

For many trans people, that feeling is rare.

That is why it's this is why I understand how incredibly lucky we are to have the world's first transgender district here in San Francisco.

But even with that historic achievement, the attacks, the horrors of our communities currently ex that is currently experiencing, make it even more important that our city stands behind uh us.

My name is Percia or Persia.

I'm an educator at an afterschool arts program, founding member of Drag Story Hour and San Francisco San Francisco's current drag laureate.

I know firsthand the power of represent of representation.

I watch young people and elders alike light up when I when they hear stories, when I read them stories about uh their lives, their identities and humanity.

This time is expired.

But thank you much for addressing as committee.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Carolina.

I come here as a resident of the Tenderloin.

I want to speak on to the impact that these banners have to myself, not just as an affiliate of the district, but as someone who has to walk down Jones, Lovingworth, and also Turk Street very frequently, whether it is to go shopping or to run my errands or go to work.

It is a light to see these words of affirmation in a time in which every other day we're constantly seeing our rights either be uh pawned off for the spite of something else.

And I would really appreciate if we could maintain um further support for something like this because we are the world's first and only uh cultural district.

Thank you.

And thank you, Caramina.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Carlo Gomez Artiaga.

I'm the co-executive director of the transgender district, and I just echo my fellow colleagues and also community members, the importance of not just visibility, but of San Francisco being a leader, not just in this country, really in the world.

And we need to acknowledge our place and our responsibilities, and we hope that you can support us in this effort.

Thank you much, Carlo Gomez.

Okay, next speaker.

Hi, Azine Zia Ebrahimi.

I implore you all as civil servants to please set aside the glaringly obvious internal contradictions one must contend with while struggling with the nature of ethics lost when contemplating difficult concessions.

The virtual capital that this city professes is one of the greatest, one of our greatest assets is being revealed as performative within this very moment, as a plausible hanging chad of other utter disregard.

The stakes are far too high for living, breathing siblings who have been labeled as false deliverables here in these very chambers, many of them drawn to San Francisco while being sold a token bill of goods as a sanctuary city in opposition to a oppressive regimes within Confederate states when we all knew we have never had the refined resources to support such claims.

Speaker's time has expired, but thank you, Zinzi Ibrahim, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Miss Billy Cooper, and I'm a sixty-seven-year-old disabled United States veteran, unapologetically black transgendered woman.

And I have been living in San Francisco for 45 years, and up until the point that the transgender culture district was created, you know, it has helped many people, and it's in the community as a safe haven for trans and uh gender nonconforming and gender not binary people.

And I just want to say, you know, we have we don't really get the big end of the stick.

And when we do get something, transgender people in San Francisco, it's always somebody that wants to take it away.

I mean, you know, it is just like uh medical and uh health and uh uh housing and there's so many transgender people on the street that the city of San Francisco that the city and county of San Francisco has said that they're gonna help for years.

So I implore you to keep funding the transgender culture district, because I hold on a minute.

But thank you much for addressing this committee.

Thank you much for Billy Cooper.

I remember what we were not, they all have problems.

And with that, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Thank you.

Thank you.

See, thank you.

Seeing no more public comments.

Public comment is now closed.

Um colleagues have indicated earlier um that we uh still awaiting a copy of the grant agreement, but clearly we're all in support of it.

Uh thank you so much uh for the co-sponsorship of Supervisor Mat Moo, Supervisor Dorsey, as well as Supervisor Mendelman.

And so with that, uh, I would like to make the motion to continue for one week and uh roll call, please.

And on the motion to continue this ordinance to the June 3rd meeting of this committee.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Hi.

Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Solder, I chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clark, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number three.

Yes, item number three is a resolution approving and authorizing the director of property on behalf of the Department of Children, Youth, and their Families, Human Rights Commission, and Department of Public Health to execute a lease for the real property located at 1050 McAllister Street to Booker T.

Washington Community Service Center for the provision of youth family and community-based support services to San Francisco residents at the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center for a term beginning upon the full execution of the lease and expiring on June 30th, 2027, with one six-month option to extend at an annual lent of with an annual rent of one dollar and authorizing the director of property to enter into amendments or modifications to the lease to now materially increase obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the lease or the resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

So with that, colleagues, I would like to um now just directly go to the public comment.

And uh for those who want to comment.

Let's go.

Okay.

And we are now opening comment, uh public comment for this item number three.

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, first speaker, please.

Good morning, supervisors.

I am here in support of the Ella Hill Hutch Community Center, as well as Booker T.

Washington.

Um, Ella Hill Hutch has provided services in San Francisco since 1981 to specifically to uh African Americans and the reality is that since 1981, we've had, I think, a significant decline of African Americans in the city.

And so when services go away, spaces go away, rarely do they come back.

The statistics looks like this in as it relates to demographics.

Um African Americans were 14% of the population in 1980, and when the census was done uh in 2020, um speaker's time has expired.

I do apologize for cutting anybody off, but the chair did announce that uh we are holding public comment in one minute today.

Next speaker, please.

Hello, uh my name is Eric Kascott, and first I have to give honor to the Lord Jesus Christ who is ahead of my life, and I just wanted to state that this particular item um needs special attention because I believe that the mayor um decided not to move forward with this project.

Uh we believe that the project is now in the hands of Park and Rec.

And as a community member, I am asking that we remain very close to this project so that it stays in the hands of the African American community.

So anything moving forward with this particular item, we want to just state that we need to stay very close to community, the people who know exactly the history, the relationship, and the sincerity of what the LAL Hutch Community Center means to us.

So thank you so much, Board of Supervisors.

Thank you much.

We have no other speakers, madam chair to completes our queue.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to make the motion to move this item to continue this item to the call.

My apologies.

Okay.

Let's reopen public comments for this item for the privilege of Reverend Amos Brown, our former supervisor.

Okay.

Madam Chair, members of the committee, uh ladies and gentlemen.

I rise to simply say that this African American community deserves respect, engagement, honest, moral, discussion, on all items that pertain to the quality of life for African Americans in the city and county of San Francisco.

I rise to speak for the faith community, which in great measure historically has always been a community with a capital C for African Americans.

But we had no other place where we were welcomed, included and even respected as being human beings.

I voice finally the sentiment that was expressed by Ms.

Scott that as this matter goes forward please pretty please let the African American community as a family iron out any wrinkles retrieve any fumble ball and make a touchdown with this black community that has been so much devastated divided disrespect through public policy that the reparations committee which I served on documented with nothing but the facts not hearsay no alternative facts opinions but the facts so we need to have healing and let us continue to be agents of healing by making sure that nothing is finalized regarding Ella Hill Hutch without quality quantitatively engagement of the African American community.

Thank you very much Brown and so and yes seeing no other yes if we have any more public speakers please line up on the curtain okay very well go ahead ma'am go for you we're gonna put back the limits of one good morning everyone I am a resident of District 5 and I am in agreement with Ella Hill Hutch be a book T Washington LAL Hutch in the black community have the commitment that you guys made that we can have that in our community.

Please this is important for our children this is important for our people and I ask you with respect to your this organization to look at what you made the commitment and the promise to keep our community in our hands thank you very much.

And thank you much for your comments again if we have any other speakers please line up by the curtains yes good morning supervisors San Francisco my name is Ethan I'm the Fillmore Corridor Ambassador I'm appalled of the city and county flip-flopping hip hopping and don't know what the hell they doing from the mayor all the way down to supervisors and department heads now I'm here representing the black media today when we're not here but we need to sit down with every department head and every politician to find out what in the hell they're doing well only got 27 seconds left my God this is the crucial issue here right now I don't have time to say it but right now I'm appalled of the city and county, the mayor, and all the departments can't even find out what we need for our community.

We need to save Ella Hill Hutch Community Center.

It was given to us by Feinstein was dedicated to Ella Hill Hutch, and it should remain in the black community.

My name is Ace Dammit.

And I'm going to make a bunch of Washington.

Seeing no other speakers, Madam chair that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to make the motion to um move this to continue this item to the call.

Chair and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to continue to the call of the chair.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I, Member Sauter.

Solder, I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan I, we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number four.

This item number four is a resolution authorizing the sheriff's office to contract with the San Francisco pretrial diversion project for pretrial services for a three-year period from July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2029 for a contract total not to exceed amount of approximately 22.5 million with one two-year option to extend.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have our chef here.

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

My name is Patrick Leoung.

I'm the chief financial officer for the sheriff's office.

This morning we're requesting the committee's recommendation for our pre-trial services contract.

We have a short presentation for you today.

I want to begin with just a brief overview of our pretrial diversion project.

This pretrial diversion project has been in existence for almost 50 years.

The program has grown since its inception, and the biggest changes have occurred from the Humphrey and Buffin court cases.

This contract covers four major areas: probable cause and the public safety assessment report helps determine if an individual is eligible for pre-arraignment release.

The next category is pretrial supervision, where a person uh released on own reconnaissance who may have release conditions for active supervision or no active supervision, minimum supervision, and assertive case management.

The next category is the pretrial divergent services that provides individuals alternatives to incarceration.

In terms of the annual budget for this contract, it's approximately $7.5 million per year.

Within the contract, I want to talk a little bit about some of the performance metrics that we've had for 2025.

What you see on this screen is three different categories.

Active case management requires the most engagement.

Some of the individuals involved within OR, they may experience difficulties in meeting court dates, primarily because they may be facing issues such as uh housing difficulties and other factors that contribute to them unable to make be unable to make their court appearance.

However, as a whole, it is the appearance rates are pretty in good standing as compared to other counties.

The last two categories are in-custody referrals and group attendance for in custody referrals.

We also see that the safety rate is 96%.

Safety rate refers to whether an individual who is on pretrial who is participating in any of the pretrial services, whether they are at risk of uh recidivism and uh within these metrics.

We can see that the services being provided by pretrial, they have a high safety rate, and uh the appearance rate is for all categories are above 80 percent.

The last item that you see on the screen is the some of the metrics on the group facilitation services, and uh the two main services that pretrial is providing is for anger management and thinking for a change.

Within this table, we kind of summarize the different um appearance rates across all different categories for the whole entire calendar year of 2025.

Um the one area that I want to talk about.

Sorry, that I want to talk about for our pretrial contract, is that we have been working with San Francisco pretrial for the last two years with our other city partners, including the controller's office, um, because they've have faced some financial difficulties.

Uh we want to acknowledge that pre-trial has had some findings through the city's nonprofit monitoring process.

We have been working with them uh collaboratively for approximately the last year and a half.

They have definitely faced some difficulties on being able to manage their finances.

However, they are uh through the course of a year with working with the controller's office technical assistance provider and working with our office, working with some of the other city partners.

Uh, they have made some improvements through their organization and uh the when we last had the monitoring visit with them in 2024.

They had a operational deficit for that year of approximately 1.6 million dollars.

They've significantly reduced that for this calendar year 2025, and they continue to improve.

Um, one area that they've helped improve is the diversification of the different services and revenue sources that they've been able to obtain.

For our contract, in last fiscal year, our contract represented about 70% of their revenues.

This year, because of their diversification, diversification and other revenue streams such as their crank start foundation grant, our contract is now about 50% of their total revenue sources, and so that's uh big significant improvement, and we do intend to continue to work with pretrial services on helping them manage and improve the other outstanding um findings that they have from the monitoring report.

And if there's any questions from the board, uh definitely happy to answer them.

Thank you.

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

Item four is a resolution that approves uh the sheriff to enter a new contract with pretrial services, pretrial diversion project.

The contract has an initial term of three years with two one-year options to extend, and the resolution approves a 22.5 million dollar agreement that's sufficient to get them through that initial three-year term.

Uh this contract was awarded following a competitive solicitation in which pretrial was the top scoring proposer.

And the contract would allow them to continue to do the public safety assessments and pretrial supervision and diversion programming that was just discussed by the Sheriff's Office.

We showed the appearance and safety rates for pretrial clients on page eight of our report.

And that is a pretty stable statistic going back several years.

And also noting that the pretrial diversion project is on corrective action plan with the city to uh late financial audits and other uh findings that, you know, the city's review found that their kind of financial condition was inconsistent with standards that the city sets for nonprofits.

You can see on page nine of our report, this is about a $7.5 million a year contract.

It's entirely funded by the general fund.

Um, and as a policy consideration, we are noting that at the request of the Superior Court, the adult probation department actually has a proposal to the mayor's office to um create their own division of pretrial services and bring this service in-house.

Uh their proposal is for an 11 million dollar a year uh new division, so that's about three and a half million dollars more uh than this contract, which is 7.5 million dollars a year.

The courts have expressed concern about the accuracy of pretrials progress reports uh as part of the sheriff's monitoring, they did review a very small sample of those monitoring reports and determined that they were generally accurate.

Uh, but neither the courts nor pretrial nor the sheriff have any more documentation about the accuracy of those monitoring reports.

That will be a budget decision that will have to be made both by the mayor's proposed budget and then what the what the board finally approves in June.

The contract does allow it for for it to be terminated without penalty if funds are not appropriated for it.

So given the kind of parallel budget proposals uh for this service, we're considering approval of item four to be a policy matter for the board.

Thank you, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So my understanding is that the Superior Court directed that the pretrial function be assigned to the adult probation department, as you said.

How does the three-year contract with the sheriff's office reflect that decision?

Um, and do you expect that adult probation would ultimately assume the work?

So this resolution approves a three-year contract.

Um, it's not clear to me what adult probation's transition plan is.

Uh that's that's a budget decision that the mayor and the board would have to make.

Um, and if you did approve that proposal, assuming it's included in the mayor's budget, um, presumably there would be a period where pretrial would continue to provide these services, after which the funding would move over to the adult probation department.

Okay.

So given that the contracts are subject to appropriation, what would happen if this contract is not fully funded in the mayor's budget?

Then the sheriff would have to basically enter into a shorter term contract consistent with the funding level that's approved in their budget and/or find other funding sources for the contract.

Yeah, do you ordinarily what normally would happen is assuming, as with any contract, it does require funding to be available and approved through the budget process.

In the event that budget is cut, there are provisions within each city contract that allows the city um to uh terminate the contract for convenience or for circumstances where funding is unavailable.

Okay.

If um, so the court has expressed concerns about pretrial diversion, and I don't take the court's recommendations lightly.

You know, I I note here that it is a policy consideration.

Um, and I just don't know, and I say this as chair of the butt of the public safety committee, if I've have what would be helpful to me to make a decision for three years, um, could I ask what would what would the impact of restructuring this as a one-year contract be so that we could sort of suss out what's the what the the alternative models would be?

It's my understanding that most counties do it the way the court is asking us to do it.

Is that your understanding also?

I I think in terms of how other counties have their programs.

I think at least on my understanding, one of the major differences for San Francisco as compared to other counties is that some other counties never had a pretrial diversion program when I think it was POP 47 when that was adopted, that helped establish um pretrial service programs for other counties, and because of the historical um all of the programs that were in existence for San Francisco, other counties don't have another entity providing those services, and by default, it was tasked with probation departments through those other counties.

San Francisco has been a leader in this area, and we have worked with San Francisco pretrial diversion services for almost 50 years, and that's been a strong partnership.

Thank you.

Maybe Sheriff, would you like to step in and also?

Good morning, Chair Chan, uh Supervisor Dorsey, Supervisor Hard.

Uh I just wanted to add to what Patrick was saying uh in regards to your question about a year contract.

Uh, we're currently in discussions with the probation department to make sure that there is a seamless transition uh as we pivot uh to uh work on fulfilling the wishes of the courts.

Uh it is a challenging process and one that we feel would take at minimum a year.

Um we wanted to continue this contract just to make sure that there's a seamless transition while we are still doing the work.

Our interest in making sure that the courts have uh full, complete, thorough PSAs, uh reports, and summaries of uh behaviors uh is very important to us to have something continue while we're doing this transition.

So uh that is something that we talked about in terms of the transition timeline.

We had we just had our first meeting with the probation department in terms of talking about what their plan is and working with them to create a path for a good transition.

Um, I would be happy to have at least a year to be able to do that.

I if I if I may I would to given that this is there's a policy decision before us and we have a policy role I think to do our diligence in terms of a hearing, I would I think I would like to get more informed, but do it in a way that doesn't risk the continuity, and it feels to me that an elegant the most elegant solution might be a one-year with an option to extend uh moving forward just just to unpack what the alternatives are.

It just it it even when this was coming, the I was almost surprised because I thought that the we were making um that adult probation was sort of further along in this.

If I may so I think, but I also see supervisor souter have some question, um, but if I may I mean I think that um I would suggest that we do approve this contract and what we can do during budget when the sheriff's department come before us, similarly, kind of what we did with open gov um and the permit modernizations, either way, we have to fund pretrial.

The question is whether this contract sits with the sheriff's department or is it with um adult probation?

And I think that currently it seems to me that if we were to approve it today, and I want to be able to call on the mayor's office, like the budget office to answer some of those details question that about both uh funding, appropriation of funding, and whether it's actually going to be inclusive of the upcoming, which I assume so for the upcoming two fiscal years for the very least, which is $7 million, a little bit more than $7 million each year.

So that means we can put the line item on reserve, and then we'll come back to this body for hearing, and then whether then it will have to be released.

And at that moment, then you can have a choice, not necessarily for the upcoming fiscal.

Well, once they actually, if you put both years on reserve, they will have to come back for the release.

Well, you probably want to put the second year on reserve as the funding, and then they will have to come back to you and uh come back to this body, come back to this committee to release the second year for the contract.

Would it give us the option if if it turns out that adult probation is the better option?

Or is there is the path we should pursue?

Does that still allow us the flexibility to do that?

Yeah, I mean, I think that it basically you're just allowed approving the contract, but you are not releasing the funding.

And then so then by the time when you decided that, then you have the ability to quote unquote terminates the contract.

But however, I just want to put it out there though, this is again an executive branch um decision to make to how they want to propose the contract, along with of course the sheriffs.

Um, and I do not believe we're here to actually be able to amend the terms and the condition of the contract.

We're here to vote up and down of that contract.

We could put funding as a committee on reserve.

Um, of course, we can also continue this item to allow the sheriff's department to have a conversation about how if if they were in agreement to amend the terms of the contract to one year term, and so let's noodle on that, and I'm gonna call on Supervisor Souter.

Okay, yes, as we contemplate that, um, and we may need more time to dig into this, but a question uh for the sheriff.

You know, we see through the BLA report, we see the the financial impact of a potential transfer here to adult probation.

But can you speak to the work itself?

How it looks different under adult probation, or you know, when we look at the metrics here and the performance under pretrial, how do you anticipate how how do you think they might be different under adult probation?

Based on the one meeting that we have had so far, uh there was an interest expressed by the adult probation chief, uh Crystal Tullock and her staff that they were looking towards a model for public safety assessments at the front end of pretrial diversion uh that relied on technology and some semblance of a uh a process involving a system similar to what Alameda County has.

That's something new to us.

Uh it would be uh different in process and form than what we currently have.

Uh we have additional concerns about material changes to what we currently do may have impacts on the Buffin decision and us going back to explain that to the federal courts.

Um, we haven't seen the full plan yet, and our next meeting to talk about this with probation is not until July.

So I have a concern about the transition and the timeline that's being expressed.

Uh, I believe um that we will need more time to make sure we flesh this out completely.

Thank you.

And hearing that, um, I would be hesitant for a three-year term.

So uh I would like us to find a a different path.

Uh well, in that case, I want to articulate, I'm in this agreement with all due respect to Chief Turlock.

Uh, you know, I have great respect for her uh as our adult probation, you know, chief, and I really am grateful for her work.

Um, that I wanna say that just overall structure wise, um, and of course I have respect for our sheriff.

Um, and not only that our sheriff, it's elected sheriff with a commission, oversight's commission, as well as a inspector general in structure.

Um, I find that to be structurally, and of course, uh again, with respect to Chief Tarlock and respect to our sheriff, um, that I will probably always in a position to support, um, especially a long-standing pretrial program that has been under the sheriff's department for a long time.

I will pop I will have to say that I I want to articulate the trust and the respect I have for elected office uh that has a oversights commission as well as uh inspector general, um, and the fact that we're going through an audit, which thank you so much, sheriff, um, for your cooperation uh going through an audit um to kind of really evaluate how we can um address some of the issues both in your again, structural deficits, overtime and spending and staffing and so much more that I do see that pretrial again as part of that overall audit that really help us to make sure that things are running efficiently.

Um I have again, you know, I I with all the respect to the court as well as adult probation.

I do not see that this transfer is anything better.

I I I am I I have questions about the decisions of why we have to transfer from the sheriff's department to to the to actually adult probation.

Um I think that each department again with all the respect that have like both the chief and the sheriff uh i is that there's also other problems that we actually have to tackle one way or another.

I don't know if this is the most ideal time for transfer um of those duty um given.

So that's where I actually am in disagreement uh in terms of what it's ahead.

But I am in agreements that I am happy to um say how can we evaluate and give a chance to have a conversation and dialogue and give um the sheriffs uh an opportunity to actually have that conversation with with the adult probation chief and say, you know, should we decide to transfer, what would that actually look like?

Um and whether that the city can have some options and whether that is an option that is the most efficient and should be available to to us as a city.

Um so I am just saying where I'm at.

Like I'm not ready to say no to this contract.

I'm I'm I'm open to saying how can we approve this contract?

Those because the work must be done right now, because the contract actually expired June 2020 six, so in one short month, it's expiring.

So I am in a position that I want to approve this contract, but I am also open to the terms and condition that we need to place on this contract to allow potential to allow the discussion and conversation about potential transfer.

So that's where I'm at, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So I just uh, you know, right now I just feel that I don't want to take lightly the court's concerns about the pretrial divisions.

They've expressed concerns about financial stability, transparency, management, accuracy of progress reports for people under pretrial um supervision.

Can I actually this for the city attorney?

Um if could I could I ask if there were a motion to amend this to one year versus we're gonna approve this as written but put the remaining the the all but the first year on reserve.

Is that a distinction without a difference or is there a difference?

Would would to what extent would we have the ability to take the year ahead?

So we've got the continuity of a year and then a year to also just uh unpack and actually have a fully informed policy decision about which direction we're going in.

Uh Deputy City Attorney Brad Russian, the the contract itself, like all other contracts that come before the board is for an up-or-down vote.

So the board can't amend it to reduce the term unless the department agreed to that.

And I guess the other question you had was whether to put the remaining funds after the first year on committee reserve for release after the first year passes.

I think that's something that you you could do through your approval here.

Okay.

Okay, so the so the the amendment to the contract then isn't isn't an option that's the if I understand correctly that's our option.

Right to live to live to fight another day and basically do do our due diligence as policymakers to make a fully informed policy decision within the next year.

It feels to me like the reserved option is that's the only way you can go.

You you can't unilaterally amend this contract, but if you wanted to continue and discuss with the have the department further discuss with the mayor's office and the committee whether to if they want to propose a one-year contract or modifying the contract they've submitted, the board could approve that.

Can I ask the sheriff, would you be open to that?

Is there a time crunch on just just having a conversation?

Uh I think at least in terms of efficiency in the process.

I think if we do amend it to one year, that would probably be the quickest path forward without having to go through additional hearings.

We would put it on we would put the funding for the second two years on reserve.

But then we would also still want to meet with you and possibly have a public hearing to unpack all of this.

So uh so what I do understand is this that this is right now a three-year contract.

It went out, so first of all, let's walk this through.

And anybody can correct me if I'm wrong.

This actually contract was an RFP that the Sheriff's Department went, it went out for bid, and that the currently the contractor who pretrial diversion project has won the bid, and and as a result, because of the results of the RFP is for a three years contract with two one-year options followed that three year three years contract.

So as a city, it's obligated to fulfill that contract because now someone has one, like pretrial has won that bid.

And so then now the sheriff's department is presenting us this very contract that the that they went through the entire process, legal process for this contract.

And the board as an authority is can only vote up or down to either we deny or accept the contract.

And that there is a time crunch because the existing contract, while it's it's actually a different contract, but the existing contract, you even though with the same contractor, the existing contract is set to expire June 2026.

So today, as of today, is May 27, 2026.

So it's a little tight for us.

But it sounds to me that my colleagues are in 10 to wanting to see and want to have continuum conversation about the contract in its totality, but mainly is really for the transfer from this bot from this body from the sheriff's department to the adult probation.

There could be just a oversight, there's actually there's in my opinion, there's actually many ways to do it.

There could actually be the same contractor, but now it's being overseen by the adult probation.

There could be um directly then now you terminate this contract, but because now you have adult probation staffing to do this.

However way that there could be a discussion for transfer.

Either way, what we can actually do as a body, technically that's what I would do.

If I have questions about a contract, colleagues, is that we would approve this contract, and should the sheriff's department actually is coming back to us, uh in sh in about literally in two weeks, then we can put that line item for this funding the second year, not the first year for this contract to put on reserve.

And then that means that when they need to fulfill this contract moving forward, they will have to submit a letter to release the fund to this body, which then will trigger a hearing of this body, which then you can then decide.

If you decide not to release the fund, then it means it's a denial of the contract, and that they will have to sort it out.

But hopefully not.

Hopefully, by then the sheriffs will come back to you and say, Great news, we sort this out, or that you also have changed your mind, or however way, you know, or or about your thoughts on this contract, or so that's one option, which is I see that sheriff's um Paul Mayamoto is nodding and was which is it seems like it's what he prefers.

And I'm gonna leave, I'm not gonna put words in his mouth, and I think that the sheriff deserves to a minute to be able to make his remark and respond to this discussion.

But I think that I also want to put it out there because for transparency is that colleagues, we could we could continue this to the call chair and then to allow this contract to go through with the sheriff's budget um hearing.

However, should we do that though?

It will it's it's tight because the contract is expiring, and that we will probably be in the same place either way because there's no way enough time for them to go back for to for RFP.

It will be the same contractor.

If we're actually having issues with the same contractor, we will then have to approve a contract that's retroactive.

But oh, but I'm not completely correct.

I just wanted to return to Supervisor Dorsey's question because Mr.

Minard reminded me of of one issue with this particular contract.

If the if the term were reduced to only one year, then that one year would be 7.5 million dollars in expenditures, which doesn't reach the 9.118 threshold for board approval.

So by reducing the term, but the board would no longer need to approve this contract.

So that's just one more thing for you all to keep in mind.

Okay.

I feel you.

Just a follow-up on that point.

So then that actually is another argument for putting this on reserve, at least.

So that we live to here's but I think my concern is that we have the superior court of San Francisco making a request, and as policymakers, I feel that we just owe them some real examination on what they're asking for and why.

This is a policy consideration, and I just want to make sure that we're fully considering this, and I don't know that we've done that.

I am sympathetic.

Obviously, I don't want to do something that's gonna upend our continuity for the next year, but I think this um living to fight another day and that like having having a year so that we can move forward, and that'll give us time to work with the court's concerns and make sure that what we're doing is a fully informed policy decision.

Well, but I can say I guess is that um if if the board wants to the contract would need to be over ten million dollars for it to be uh before the board for approval.

Okay.

So um so I'm gonna lay this out and then propose this and then to hope that this could be a satisfactory, that we could make the motion to forward this item without recommendation, because clearly we have some questions, um, and then to make clear to both um the budget and legislative analyst and then controller, as well as to the mayor's office, budget's office, that we it is and of course sheriffs, um, that it is the intention of this body to put when you return and come back before us in June, that it is our intention to put that line item for this contract on for the second year on reserve, because we only do two years, you know.

Clearly, then that means the third year, and so it it will automatically well, not automatically, but when they come before us, we we'll probably have a further discussion.

But for the very least, we know the second year of this contract will be on reserve.

And then sheriffs, please.

The floor is yours.

Thank you, Chair.

And I I appreciate the thoughtfulness being given to this process and the decisions.

Uh again, I want to stress um we have a situation here where our office is responsible ultimately for providing this service to the courts.

Uh as you have mentioned, Supervisor Dorsey, the courts have expressed an interest in moving on uh from our current processes and moving to the adult probation department.

Uh, my concerns in regards to the timeline that was being discussed would be addressed uh with a path as you have proposed, uh, given time and given time where we have a thoughtful deliberate transitional process.

Um, you know, I know that there are budgetary considerations as well for for all of us as a city and stewards of of good financial responsibility.

Um it is challenging to have all of this happen right now during the budget process when a contract comes up.

But I think that if I understand the direction you're giving, I think that would address both the court's concerns and our concerns regarding the process itself.

Supervisor Souter.

Thank you, and thank you, Sheriff.

You know, I think there's uh clearly a lot of questions here about this transition and possible transition.

So I do think it is important that we have some of these kind of trigger points and safeguards.

Um so I think laying it out as you suggested, Chair Chan, uh makes sense.

Um let's have the time to uh inspect uh any uh funding for year two and for year three.

There's a lot of questions.

Um, you know, I think there's a possibility for continuance, but I don't think we'll have the answers within the next week or two.

Um, and there's a lot of open questions for me on this.

Um, you know, the numbers in terms of the performance coming from uh the pretrial diversion project appear uh to be solid, um, but there is um, you know, there is some concern about the the validity of those numbers.

Uh that needs time to be examined to figure out what the better route is.

Let's let's take care of this first year and go from there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

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

If we have any members of the public who wish to address this committee, uh please go ahead and line up next to those curtains, and if I can have the first speaker, I'll strike your time at one minute.

Hello, supervisors.

David Morov, CEO of San Francisco San Francisco pretrial.

Um, the decision to move pretrial services kind of to your point, uh Supervisor Dorsey's, is at this point not a policy decision being made.

Um, decision to move into adult probation has not been made to support public policy, and it will harm our most vulnerable communities.

It will take individuals who have been arrested and incarcerated, ignoring the presumption of innocence that we all afford to all of us, and embed them deeper in the criminal justice system through supervision by a law enforcement agency.

It ignores 50 years of expertise.

People who are here today.

This isn't about a contract.

This is about people who do work 24-7, 365, who pour their hearts and souls into protecting San Francisco and public safety and our most vulnerable communities.

And San Francisco pretrial is not inclined to participate in a peaceful transition.

This is not in the best interest of San Francisco.

Thank you much, David Maroff.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is Xavier Rosenberg, and I work with the judicial services team and SF pretrial.

As someone born here, SF has always been my home.

Running a city has many costs, and cutting funding for SF pretrial wouldn't will incur a very public cost for the city and for the vulnerable population.

They'll be immediately affected by the potential loss of our services.

I've worked with the judicial services team for nearly three years, and our jobs are to maintain a positive and fluid relationship with the court staff as well as be the faces of us of pretrial within every possible department at the Hall of Justice.

Our goal is to provide the disadvantaged communities with the chances that they need to overcome their challenges, and I will never stop fighting for these people.

The city needs people like us to ensure that the most vulnerable of us receive the help that they need.

And if any of us here today were behind bars at this very moment, I sure as hell would want someone to advocate for me as much as I've constant constantly advocated for the vulnerable population of the city.

Thank you.

Thank you about Josavia Rosenberg.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Clara.

I've been working with pretrial diversion for about two and a half years.

I'm currently a program manager for our pretrial pathways initiative program, and I also did in custody case management for two years before that.

Pre-trial pathways initiative PPI is one of our newer programs to provide more expedited service connection for our higher need clients and more wraparound care.

And that neutrality doesn't exist in a law enforcement agency, has never will, never, could never.

Clients would never be as open with someone in adult probation as they can be with us in that type of relationship because of previous like mistreatment that they might have had from the system.

And I care deeply about supporting people navigating that system and providing them someone in their corner that they trust.

I've had many clients say I'm one of the only people that they trust to follow through and show up in those tough moments.

Speaker's time has expired.

Thank you much, Clara.

Next speaker.

Greetings, supervisors.

My name is Jasmine Alvarez as born and raised in the mission and in the Bayview district where I'm a current resident.

I'm also a staff at San Francisco Pre-Trial Diversion Project.

I'm a mental health therapist, one of three at the agency with a unique and specialized skill of meeting with individuals for therapy and also for group.

And since 2021, I've been invested in this community at San Francisco pretrial because I believe in San Francisco and its residents and the rehabilitation that's possible.

Please consider maintaining the integrity of the work that's being done within the community by a community-based agency for the community that it serves and protect our program.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Jasmine Alvarez.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Teresa, and I'm a housing case manager at San Francisco Pretrial, working with individuals experiencing homelessness.

I'm here today, not to just speak about the needs of the client, but also about the critical role San Francisco pretrial access point plays in addressing those needs.

These services and programs are provided through these departments, are not optional, they are essential.

Every day I work with individuals striving for stability, and just last week we housed four just as involved clients, and today we're housing two.

San Francisco pretrial has access point provides structured resources that make stability throughout the rental through rental assistance placement programs and ongoing support.

Without these service, many individuals we serve would not have no pathway through housing.

Thank you much, Teresa.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors.

My name is Martina Bowie, and I am the COO of San Francisco Pre-trial.

Nelson Mandela once said a nation should not be judged by how it treats its highest citizens but its lowest ones.

Today you have the power to be judged well.

I'm here to urge this board to approve the entire 22.5 million dollar contract and reject all proposals and considerations to hand pretrial services to adult probation department.

SS pretrial serves over eighteen hundred people every single day, presumed innocent San Franciscans who are among our most invisible people navigating the justice system in need of housing, employment, health care, and mental health services.

These are our neighbors, and this work connecting people to stay ability and support, something probation cannot do, directly contributes to the safety of every San Franciscan.

Behind that work are over 100 dedicated staff, many of whom have lived experiences in the very system they now serve.

Speaker's time has expert, but thank you much, Martina Bowie.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Plunder Shnees Laslam, and I speak to you today as a former employee of the SF Pre Trial Diversion Project.

I'm here because I've seen the inner workings of this organization, and I can firmly tell you there's no other agency in this city capable of replicating the specialized work that they do.

SF pretrial is the connective tissue of our justice system.

During my time there, I saw that our real value wasn't just in processing cases, but in the trust that we built.

Because we're a community-based nonprofit, we could reach people who would never engage with the law enforcement agency.

We were essentially the bridge.

We were the ones doing the intensive daily work of making sure people didn't just show up to court, but they had that they had the stability to stay out of the system for good.

If you dismantle SF pretrial, you aren't cutting a line item.

You're creating a dangerous vacuum.

When you pull the rug out from a 50-year-old institution, you don't get efficiency.

You get chaos in the courts and a surge in jail population that we simply cannot afford.

San Francisco's budget should reflect what works.

SF pretrial works.

It keeps people out of jail cells that cost taxpayers hundreds of dollars a day and keeps them in programs that actually change lives.

Thank you.

And thank you for addressing this committee next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Cassie Dibble, and I'm making my comments on behalf of the ACLU of Northern California in support of SF pretrial.

At a time when invaluable city services are being cut due to budget constraints, probation is proposing a needless and costly upending of the established work of SF pretrial.

Under pretrial's decades long tenure, SF residents make more court appearances, recidivate less, and are connected to more programs that address mental health, substance use, and other underlying factors that contribute to criminal legal involvement.

This means less incarceration and huge savings for the city, sparing the cost of jailing thousands of residents a year.

To the extent the city wants law enforcement involved in pretrial supervision, pretrial already works in close collaborations with the Sheriff's Office.

And to the extent the city wishes to cut costs, pretrial operates with a smaller budget than probation is seeking and with twice the staff.

So what could possibly justify this change?

How will City Hall explain this to its constituents as costs increase and public safety outcomes decrease?

You are facing many difficult budgetary decisions.

Fortunately, this one is simple.

The city should not pay more to replace a program that works.

Please approve pretrials contract and deny probations needless and copy request.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Cassie Dibble.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name's Tierra Sims, and I'm the director of program services at pretrial.

I'm getting kind of nervous because this is so meaningful to me.

I was born and raised in San Francisco, District 10, still a resident of District 10.

Pre-trial means so much to me.

It's not just a program, it's our lives, it's our clients' lives.

Back in my days when I was in trouble, I only qualified for OR.

Well, I didn't even qualify for OR, but the services that we've built today and the services that we provide to our clients is so much needed.

We show up every day.

We have clients who can pick up the phone and call and say, I'm I need support.

I'm in trouble.

And we have client staff who will go out into the communities to go support these clients to pick them up, bring them back to our office and give them the support that they need.

You're nervous about court, don't worry.

I'm gonna take you to court.

We go above and beyond.

I can't even imagine a probation department doing the work that we do.

There's been times where I walked around the office and I've Clara who just got up here.

Speaker Simon's expired.

Thank you for your time.

And thank you, Jerry Sims.

Next speaker.

Committee members, thank you for sharing before we have this two-minute testifying.

So I want to change some of my remarks, but my name is Roma Guy, former health commissioner and current member of the women's housing coalition.

I think with the evidence that you have and the increased partnership that needs to be sitting at the table if you're gonna do this negotiation for the next year.

You need to hear this.

If you have questions about it, pretrial needs to be at that table to show you what the evidence is, not just one tactical move, because if you're surprised, we got shocked.

Okay.

So you need to hear pretrial at the right table.

The Board of Supervisors want you that the tactical move is to have the Board of Supervisors dissolve pretrial.

But thank you, Mr.

Guy, for addressing this committee.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, my name is Diana Block.

I'm a founder and active member with the California Coalition for Women Prisoners and also a member of the participatory defense hub in San Francisco.

We work with women and gender expansive people all the time who use pretrial services and find it incredibly supportive and helpful versus adult probation.

I hope that you do your due diligence and put adult probation under the same scrutiny that you've put pre-trial.

We strongly, strongly urge you to approve the three years contract, which will then enable pretrial to actually be functional.

One year with the threat of then being finished.

What does that do to all the people in this room who have been testifying?

That is a really not a supportive environment for them to do the very challenging work that they have to do every day.

Thank you.

And thank you, Diana Block.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

Uh, my name is Miguel Navarro.

I'm a case manager with five keys, and I would like to share the importance of our partners with SF pretrial.

As a case manager, it is essential for me to connect with SF pretrial to provide these services.

It is a shame that technology is being used as a way to replace people.

Uh, we need people that got souls, they got spirits, that have lived experience working with the people that are incarcerated.

And I would encourage you guys to come visit San Bruno County jail and see the conditions people are living in.

We need SFP trial to continue to do the work, and as Dr.

Marshall said, uh, to keep our people alive and free.

Thank you.

Thank you, Miguel Navarro.

Next speaker.

Hello, my name is Joanna Hernandez.

I'm the director of strategic partnership for pretrial.

I know firsthand what incarceration does to families.

As a mother of an incarcerated loved one, I know the trauma and what it does to communities.

But I also know what happens when someone believes in people instead of giving up on them, especially during the times that we're in, like you said, Supervisor Dorsey.

That is what San Francisco pretrial does.

San Francisco pretrial is not just a program, it's a lifeline.

It is one with few places that are few places that are treated like human beings instead of case numbers.

Having adult probation be monitoring our clients is not the way to go.

They are experienced with working with post-convicted people.

Our clients are innocent till proven guilty.

Our clients deserve to be treated like humans.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, my name is Joshua Jacobo with SF pretrial, and my statement is we seem to be asking a Mitchellist Star restaurant that serves thousands of years to close and asking a restaurant that doesn't even have the infrastructure, let alone a kitchen to yield the same results.

It's simply nonsense going fiscally irresponsible to make the transition from SF pretrial to probation.

As I understand it, SB 10, which leads leans towards probation's infrastructure was rejected.

I recommend we really speak to the city attorney and stakeholders to fairly weigh your decisions.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Joshua Coco.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Sharon Rose, and I am the senior program manager of the diversion services at San Francisco pretrial.

I often say that I am a testament to the work that we do because I have remained committed to this agency for over 34 years.

What matters most to me is the transformative impact of the work that we do every single day.

We connect individuals with supportive services that promote healthier coping mechanisms to reduce the likelihood of further involvement in the criminal justice system.

I am proud of the work that we do.

Our 93% public safety weight.

I'm proud of our 96% court appearance.

Those outcomes reflect the dedication, professionalism, and compassion of the staff who have devoted themselves to this mission for over five decades.

I respectfully urge the board to approve this contract and ensure that SF Pre Trial remains fully funded so we can continue providing these critical services and continue the important work that we help transform lives in this community.

Thank you.

Thank you, Sharon Rose.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Bianca Sanchez, and I am a program manager with Mission Language and Vocational School for the Roadmap to Peace Initiative and co-chair of the Latino Task Force Reentry and Violence Prevention Committee.

And as a community provider, I have collaborated and built partnership with SF Pretrial.

They have built trusted relationships, not just with myself and my organization, but across agencies and within the community because they have people with live experience doing the work, helping reduce unnecessary incarceration, supporting court compliance, and creating pathways towards long-term stability.

In a city that needs more collaboration and prevention focused approaches, SF Pretrial remains an essential partner in advancing both justice and community safety.

They have been one of the strongest public safety partners in San Francisco because they lead with community compassion and results.

Their work goes far beyond court reminders or supervision.

They help stabilize individuals at one at one of the most critical moments in the justice system while still prioritizing accountability and safety.

Dismantling SF pretrial will now strengthen public safety.

It will weaken one of the few systems that actively bridges the courts, community organizations and behavior.

Hi, good morning.

My name is Hey Souls.

I currently work as a violence interrupter and case manager for a roadmap to peace.

I'm here in support with SF pre trial because I have worked with some SF pretrial uh clients.

Uh for 50 years.

SF pretrial has been a national model rooted in SF values.

Um we should be investing it, not dismounting it in it.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Jesus.

Next speaker.

Next speaker.

Hi.

My name was 4762090 for 40 years.

San Francisco Pretrial's giving my name back, which is Ronald Clark.

And I'd like to keep it.

And I'd like to keep them and I'd like for you to fund them completely so that I can keep my name so that I don't have to go back to that number ever again.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Ronald Clark.

And before I call up the next speaker, to the members of the audience, this is the only time.

How each speaker has one minute to address this committee.

We should be able to hear their commentary without applause behind it, so we can hear them clearly.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Tiffany Holmes.

I'm an enhanced care case manager for San Francisco pretrial.

I've been there for four years.

Our clients are not just case numbers.

They are people struggling with homelessness, mental health challenges, addiction, trauma, poverty, involvement with justice system.

Many have nobody to turn to, they have nowhere else to go.

On some mornings, our clients are waiting for our doors to open.

Clients who are already waiting just outside for us, sometimes as early as six o'clock in the morning.

They know that they can go there.

Why?

Because we are there just to help them.

Many of them are just waiting for us because they know help is where they can go.

Why?

Because we are not with cuffs.

We are not law enforcement.

They know that they can go where help is needed.

We will help them get to court.

We will help them find transitional housing.

We will help them just because we have ears.

And we will not be that judgment piece as probation will be.

We will help them to to where they need to go.

Please support us.

Thank you, Stephanie Holmes.

Next speaker, please.

Good morning.

My name is France Jimenez.

I am a housing case manager, one in San Francisco's housing access points for adults at SF pretrial.

Our housing department has a direct linkage from custody to stable housing for both adults and youth experiencing homelessness.

And I see every day how community support changes lives.

For 50 years, SF pre-trials help people stabilize, reconnect with their families, and move forward with dignity.

We cannot dismantle what our community truly needs.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Hi, Jennifer Friedenbach, Coalition on Homelessness.

There's a famous line from Game of Thrones that is you know nothing, John Snow.

And it's in reference to the threat that is looming that was unknown.

And I think, you know, I'm standing here, I'm actually feeling really nauseous.

Um I think the people in the room do know what monumental threat to public safety eliminating this program is, and do know what a monumental threat to human life it is.

And there is no way, and I just want to kind of have you think out the scenario what probation can do stepping in.

Their primary job is going to be to rearrest, they're a law enforcement agency.

They're not gonna be able to walk in these same spaces, they're not gonna be able to stabilize people, they're not gonna have the level of trust.

They're not gonna be able to get people on the road where they're not reincarcerated, where they are thriving, where they are able to get completely out of the criminal justice system.

That's just not their role.

Thank you much, Jennifer Friedmanbach.

You don't need to do this.

Thank you.

Next speaker.

Uh, good morning, supervisors.

My name is Matt Miller.

Um, I'm the chief impact officer at San Francisco pretrial, and I've worked at the organization for nine years.

Um over that time, I've worked I've watched the organization grow to meet every challenge that's been put in front of it.

We've seen a number of new policy and legal mandates over those years, which have driven caseload growth and work demands.

Um, in each instance, we've restructured our services to bring in new resources, expanded capacity, and specialized roles built around the people we serve.

The contract before you reflects that.

Uh, it finds a proven operation of 50 years of institutional knowledge is knowledge, services built for high needs populations, and outcomes that outpace our peer agencies throughout the state.

Um, Supervisor Souter, I haven't had a chance to meet you yet, but I heard your comments about our outcomes.

Um, that is my domain in the organization, and something I take very seriously.

Um, our outcomes are anchored against national best practice standards.

Um, and I would be happy to be in dialogue about any questions regarding the validity or the underlying methodology we use to calculate those rates.

Um I want to close just by saying that disrupting um our proven success to stand up an untested model in other agency would cost more, deliver less, and fall hardest on people who are presumed innocent and waiting for their day in court.

Thank you, Matt Miller.

Next speaker.

Hello, I second what everyone has said here and support uh SF pretrial.

Um, and for you to approve the contract.

Um, San Francisco has taken a turn and gone tough on crime and done another war on drugs these past few years.

And you actually have a website on your SFGov websites for data on county jail population.

And since 2020, uh in jail population has doubled, according to you, from 700 to almost 1,250 people.

Um, so there is also a need to keep people out of jail if they truly do not even need to be in jail, which I don't think anyone does, but that's just me.

Um, another reason people don't want to go to jail, even if they let's say would want to serve whatever they were sentenced, they get way worse than whatever society has deemed that they um should pay in retribution.

Uh 20 women incarcerated in San Francisco sued the city and sheriff over alleged civil rights violations on Friday, one year after they were allegedly forced to participate in a mass strip search.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Hi, good morning.

My name's Lauren Hall.

I'm uh not I'm not with pretrial diversion, but I'm one of their partners in their work to also end homelessness for folks that are criminally justice involved.

Uh, and wanted to just echo my support and the support of the supportive housing provider network around ensuring that our partners who are helping place people who need our services the most in supportive housing have to have that depth of relationship to help build the trust and to really have folks be able to trust that the system will support them and their exit from this this part of their life.

I think that aside from what these all of these incredible speakers have said, that relationship building that the pretrial diversion is able to do with folks who have deep reasons to mistrust the system is priceless for San Francisco in our efforts to end homelessness and to support people for being on a positive path.

And so I really hope that you reconsider and approve this contract for its full amount.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Lauren Hall.

Next speaker.

Hi, my name is Maria Leva.

I've been with pretrial for four years.

I started as an ACM case manager.

I had a really high caseload and I supported my clients as much as I could.

Um I separated my day, I split my days to go out and look for my clients to make sure they made it to court on time.

I ended up becoming a continuum of care navigator.

Is probation going to go into these encampments?

Are they gonna go into the tenderloin looking for these clients?

Genuinely caring about these clients to make sure they go to court on time, they go pick up their medication, they go to therapy.

These are questions that you really need to ask because all of these people here genuinely care.

They're not SF numbers, they're people.

Thank you much for addressing this committee.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name's Davis DeCors.

Um I have the unique opportunity to work on the court team.

Specifically, I get the opportunity to interact a lot with the judges and attorneys in court.

And I just want to say that with full confidence, I don't know of any other organization and or team that could do the work that my team does and create the relationships that we create.

Um, as a small team, we work really hard every single day to provide the opportunity to the clients and anybody that needs it.

And I just heavily urge you to just support this contract to the fullest so that all of my colleagues can continue to do the amazing work that they do every single day.

Thank you.

Thank you much.

Next speaker.

Good morning.

My name is Jean Cabernet.

I am an ICR case manager, which stands for in custody referral, and I stand in the symbiotic relationship between the court and between my other colleagues who are also in custody case managers.

What we do is we create tailorized plans personalized to each individual after meeting with them in custody.

I'd like to see probation make that same tailorized plan after meeting someone who tells you all about their life, their trauma, their mental health, and seeing them try to do the same thing.

Um it's difficult for me to understand how, after 50 continuous years of serving San Francisco, what will the city try to even do into place of consideration when it comes to losing institutional knowledge, community partnerships, and trained staff to with this transition.

Thank you.

Thank you, John Gabernet.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

I'm Dan McElhair.

I'm the executive director of the Center on Juvenile and Criminal Justice for a nonprofit organization founded here in San Francisco 40 years ago.

And we engage in public policy work around the country on criminal justice issues and around the state.

We've worked alongside pretrial services for the entire time that we've been around.

This is a pretrial services is not just a statewide model, it's a national model.

This is a bad look for San Francisco.

You do not want to end a program that is successful and is working.

The adult probation is under the judicial branch, and I understand there's some uh decision making that gets done there, but I don't want to question the judgment of the judges, but I think it's time that we do may do that.

You control the purse strings, you can preserve this program, and you need to do it, and you need to say that this is a program that's working.

This is this is a this this shines a favorable light on San Francisco.

It's an excellent program, national model, don't mess with it.

Thank you much, Dan Eckler.

Next speaker.

Hi, I'm Anya with the People's Budget Coalition, and this process has been nothing short of scandalous from adult probation, no other city department is hiring new positions right now.

That is absurd.

To hire for an unpaid unfunded position without your authority as the board is not allowed under any circumstance.

This is not okay.

This is not acceptable.

This is not the way this budget process is done.

Adult probation and the courts are ramming this through and steering us towards a collapse of our pretrial system.

This is nothing short of a pretrial system collapse if you were to go through with this.

What you need to do as the board, this is your budget process.

This is not adult probations.

This is not the court's budget process.

They will be in front of you like the rest of us, like the rest of the nonprofits and the city workers begging to even keep their jobs.

They will come before you as one of us.

And when you hear them, I hope you weigh and consider the people in this room who are telling you the facts of the matter.

Next speaker, please.

Hi there, my name is Rubén Marquez Jimenez.

I am a lead uh PPI case manager.

By now you've heard about all the amazing work that we really do at pretrial.

And it took 50 years to really make this community for adult probation to want to rip that away from us, not just from us, actually, but from the clients that we serve is ridiculous.

Having to tell uh if I have to tell my clients that I can no longer help them and have to put them aside for a law enforcement agency to do the service that we do is unacceptable.

I don't know how they're gonna be able to accept that the level of care intendedness that we give them is going to be provided at the same level by an agency that doesn't even know what we do.

They're trying to ask employees at our job, what we do, because they have no idea how to even run an agency like this.

It took 50 years to create this community, and by wanting to rip it away, is unacceptable.

And thank you much for your comments.

Seeing no other speakers in line, madam chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public commons, public comment is now close.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

I appreciate everybody's um passion about um pretrial diversion.

Again, I it I will say I've having worked much of my career with um in law offices for the city.

It has now never been my experience that um superior court judges are um interested in undoing justice, and I take it um their concerns seriously, and I just I think that's why it we it is worth uh in fact.

I think we have an obligation to make sure that we get to the bottom of what um can be done, and perhaps hear what what pretrial diversion should be doing to meet the court's expectations so that we don't we don't have a situation like this.

So with that, um I if it's okay with uh Chair, I would like to make a motion to send this to the full board without recommendation.

A roll call, please.

And on that motion by Vice Chair Dorsey that we refer this resolution to the full board without recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey, aye, Dorsey, aye, member Sauter, Soder, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call the next item, item number five.

Item number five is a resolution approving and authorizing the director of real estate on behalf of the following city departments, the municipal transportation agency, police accountability, human resources, uh, office of the city administrator, the mayor's office of housing and community development, office of community investment and infrastructure, office of economic and workforce development, technology, public works, civil service commission, human rights commission,000 rentable square feet of office space at 1455 Market Street for an initial term of 21 years and terminating on April 30th, 2049, with two five-year options to extend the lease term with an annual base rent of approximately 14.5 million in year two, and resetting the rent to forty dollars per square foot beginning January 1st, 2027, with one percent annual increases until year four, and then three percent annually thereafter to expend an amount not to exceed approximately 10.7 million for digital technology costs, tenant improvements and furniture fixtures and equipment to the extent of available operating budget and to the extent now covered by the tenant improvement allowance, affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act, adopting the planning department's findings of consistency consistency with the general plan and the eight priority policies of the planning code and authorizing the director of real estate to execute any amendments options to extend the lease term, make certain modifications and take certain actions that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city, do not materially decrease the benefits and are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the second amendment or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have our Rio Estate Division here.

Thank you.

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

I'm Sally Orth, Director of the Real Estate Division.

And today I am presenting the proposed second amendment to the lease at 1455 Market Street.

So on this first slide, it just shows the location of 1455 Market there at Market and 11th, and the property is owned by an affiliate of Hudson Pacific Properties.

To date, the city has completed two phases of office consolidation at 1455 Market.

And this proposed second amendment would add approximately 500 two thousand square feet for departments currently located at two city owned buildings, one South NS and 25 NS, and leased space at 1390 Market Street.

It also significantly improves lease terms for both existing and new space, strengthening the city's overall economics in the deal.

And in addition, the amendment supports broader goals consolidating into more efficient footprint, reducing long-term exposure to aging facilities, and creating future flexibility for the one South NS site.

So the largest component of the proposed second amendment is the full exit from One South NS, an aging SHR3 building with significant deferred maintenance and seismic vulnerability that houses essential city functions such as MTA, the Department of Technology, and 311, which is also the backup for the 911 service.

The amendment also supports a partial consolidation from 25 NS and the relocation of city attorney office space from uh 1390 Market or Fox Plaza.

The departments are currently occupying approximately 576,000 square feet and then would consolidate it 1455 market into again 502,000 square feet.

So this amendment uh accomplishes several things, including a reset of the rent for all phases going back to the original lease back to $40 per square foot that would start in January 2027, and also reduces escalations from 3% to 1% through the first five years.

It also pushes back the start of operating expense payments by one year, and collectively, these changes are projected to save the city approximately $59 million on the city's existing lease space through the term of the original lease.

We have also negotiated a substantial increase in landlord incentives, providing up to 195 dollars per square foot for tenant improvements and relocation, which totals approximately ninety-eight million dollars from the landlord.

The landlord is also planning to fund additional building uh amenities and upgrades outside of the tenant improvement project, and then the city's contribution would be capped at approximately 10.8 million dollars, which includes the tenant improvements as well as some internally budgeted technology costs.

I also just wanted to highlight some additional context for vacating one South Van Ness.

Doing so creates future flexibility consistent with the market and Octavia area plan, which identifies that site as best suited for high density residential or mixed-use development.

But of course, any future decisions regarding that site would return uh through the normal board and planning processes.

So, in conclusion, uh just some next steps that, if approved, uh the project would move into the detailed design phase this summer, followed by phased construction through 2027.

And then the initial move-ins would be anticipated to begin in fall of 2027, and then the city attorney relocation would be aligned with the expiration of their existing lease in spring of 2028.

So that concludes my presentation.

I'm happy to answer any questions, and representatives from Hudson Pacific Properties are also here as well.

Thank you.

So over the over the initial term through 2049, the city would spend about 1.03 billion dollars in rent at this site.

About 65% of that is funded by the general fund.

In addition, the city would incur about 10.8 million dollars in tenant improvement costs.

Because of the rent reset, as mentioned by the real estate director, the existing tenants would save about $56 million in rent over that period.

The landlord is contributing $97.9 million for tenant improvements, which primarily consist of office space, and then $17 million for other improvements to the building in a conference room.

We know as a policy consideration, you know, this is primarily to vacate one South Vaness, which is a city-owned site, to partially vacate 25 Van S, which is also a city-owned site, and then eventually for the city attorney to leave Fox Plaza at 1390 Market Street.

One South Van Ness, because it's a city-owned site, the city only spends about $7 million a year to operate and maintain that site.

Those tenants would face rent costs and operating building costs of $17 million by moving to this 1455 Market Street.

So there's a short-term increase in lease cost that hits in fiscal year 27-28, so not next fiscal year, but the fiscal year after that will persist through the duration of the lease at a time when both the general fund and MTA are trying to manage a structural budget deficit in each of those funds.

Over the long term of the lease, because we're moving into city owned space, we're moving from city owned space to lease space, the city is avoiding certain deferred maintenance obligations that would be required if we continue to stay in one South Fan Ness, for example, that needs like a seismic upgrade.

And so over the term of the lease through April 2049, the city would save about 26 million dollars by avoiding those deferred maintenance costs.

So there's a long-term savings from moving into this lease.

Um thank you, Chair Chan.

First, I do want to say I appreciate the department and some great negotiating some work that you did on this.

Although this parcel is outside of the um the strictly defined civic center area plan, I do think it reflects the founding vision of that plan, which is a vibrant thriving government center during daytime hours that is then supported by world-class cultural destinations during nighttime hours.

That I think is the real has historically been the key to a successful thriving civic center that I think we might in re recent years have gotten away from a little bit, and I'm really encouraged that we're getting back to it.

Um this lease is going to bring more city workers and visitors into the corridor every day, and I think that kind of activity really matters.

It means more foot traffic, more support for small businesses, more life on the street.

Um there's a practical government case here too.

Um we have aging facilities with significant maintenance needs, deferred capital costs, operational challenges.

So we should be asking whether it makes sense to continue investing heavily into buildings that may long longer serve us well over the long term.

The department estimates that more than 100 million dollars in retrofit needs and more than 100 million in deferred maintenance at one south of Van Ness alone.

Um this is also about moving forward toward a more modern footprint instead of scattering departments across multiple facilities.

There is value in bringing services and staff together in a more coordinated way.

Um this is a real opportunity to address uh real estate needs and make an investment in mid-market, bring more life to our transit corridor, make uh land use decisions that really serve the um the needs and the values of 21st century urbanism, and I will put a plug in.

Um I do I will be having a hearing on um possible options to relocate the Hall of Justice and Police Academy, which is sort of part and parcel of this.

What we can do for leveraging our city real estate assets for the mid the market street or mid-market corridor, so that we have a um real thriving uh transit corridor that we're making use of our um market street.

So I think this is a win-win, and I'm proud to be co-sponsoring it and supporting it.

Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um for the Office of Real Estate.

I think the the case for relocation from one south of Ness is very clear in contemplating the future use as well.

Um and the same goes for 1390 Market Street.

For 25 Van Ness, can you share any conversations or thoughts about what the future of that building might be?

Yes, thank you, Supervisor.

Um, for 25 Ness, it's uh only a small partial uh vacating of about 18% of that space.

That building is going to remain city-owned, it's historic and it had it currently houses a number of public-facing um services, including Department of Public Health and the Rent Board.

So we anticipate continuing to invest um in that property.

Future tenancy of those um newly vacated spaces aren't yet determined, but you know, we know that there are always space needs.

It is, I would advise that the city include in its portfolios some swing space or some immediately available space would be a benefit to the city overall.

Okay, so even with this relocate relocation, you're saying 80% will remain occupied.

Yes.

Okay, very good.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And I don't have additional questions.

Let's go pop a comment on this item.

Yes, right now opening public comment for this item number five.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now close.

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

And on the motion to refer to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey, Dorsey, I, Member Sauter, Sauter, I, Chair Chan.

I.

Chan, I.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clark, please call item number six.

Yes, item number six is any resolution approving and authorizing the general manager of the public utilities commission to execute amendment number one to a contract for the emergency firefighting water system and cities water distribution system with uh Lee plus RO and AGS joint venture, increasing the contract amount by five million for a total not to exceed contract of 13 million, with no change to the contract duration of June 28th, 2024 through June 27, 2032, to provide additional engineering design and support for pipeline improvement projects pursuant to the charter.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have S at PUC here.

Good morning.

Chair Chan, Vice Chair Dorsey, Supervisor Soder.

My name is Tedman Lee.

I'm a civil division manager with Engineering Management Bureau at the PUC.

The item for you today would approve amendment one to contract pro 0163R engineering services for the emergency firefighting water system and the city's water distribution system.

So this is a familiar map of the Hetchetchi regional water system.

The project region covered by this contract is the seven mile by seven mile square that is the city of San Francisco.

So city staff with support from this contract for specialized services are currently planning and designing the different elements of the potable emergency firefighting water system or PEFs.

The purpose of the PEF system is to provide a high pressure.

This is a 150 to 350 PSI water supply to fight large fires after a major seismic event by building a network of reservoirs, tanks, pipelines, cisterns, pump stations, fire boats, and other ancillary facilities, all located within the city of San Francisco.

For normal daily operations, this system will provide a domestic uh potable low pressure 40 PSI water supply.

The graphic shows the PEFS pipeline segments that are currently in planning and design, all on the west side of the city.

Also supported by this contract is our linear assets management program or LAMP.

Work includes replacement, rehabilitation, relining of 10 to 15 miles per year of our water delivery pipelines located throughout the city of San Francisco.

We advertised Pro 163R in mid-2023 and awarded it in early 2024 to Lee and Roe and AGS joint venture.

It's an 8 million eight hundred or eight million eight-year contract.

This slide shows the projects in Pro 163R in the left column, the current phase of each project, the current contract budget, and our proposed amendment one modifications.

We are seeking an additional five million dollars with no additional time to continue engineering design services for PEFs and LAMP projects.

Hello.

So on this slide, you see the total contract amendment numbers relative to our overall budget.

The bottom box is 190 million dollars, which is SFPUC approved CIP funding for the potable emergency firefighting water system.

The next box up in orange is our approved EZER funding from 2020, total 123 million dollars dedicated to this part of the system.

The next box up is 67 million for the linear asset management program in gray.

So those three boxes total to about 380 million, and this amendment would be a total of 13 million or three percent of our overall approved budget for construction and soft costs.

Turn it back to Tedman.

Thanks, Josh.

Um next slide.

Okay, so quickly going over some of the projects for the pipelines.

We changed from a 975 year return period seismic event to a 2375 year return period seismic event after recommendations from subject matter experts.

So this is equivalent to a 5% in 50 year event, and we've changed it to a 2% uh probably in 50 years, so a little bit more conservative.

Um also the yellow ovals that you see are areas where our geotechnical investigations found potential areas or areas of uh potential liquefaction, and this led to needing a finite element analysis for pipeline design.

So as we you know, do condition assessment, we find things and then we adjust and adapt, and new services are needed.

For the uh for the pump stations for central pump station.

We also modified the same design criteria for a higher seismic level of service from 975 to 2375, and this resulted in changes to our geotechnical invest interpretation report.

So the values change, we have to um increase our seismic design.

For land projects, we're asking for additional capacity for geotechnical engineering and curb ramp designs for our current projects and new projects scheduled to uh start design in 2026 for all new task orders.

We will go to public works first to check if they want the work before engaging the Pro 163 R consultant.

So we've made that commitment to public works.

And again, this is the same contract budget and proposed amendment slide from earlier.

Uh we are requesting five million with no additional time to continue engineering design services for our PEFs and Lamp projects.

So that concludes my presentation, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Item six is a resolution that approves an amendment to PUC's contract with uh a joint venture of Lee and Roe and AGS to provide engineering uh work uh for an expansion of the emergency firefighter water system on the west side of the city, as well as some water distribution pipeline replacement.

The amendment increases the contract value from eight to thirteen million dollars, but doesn't change the term.

You can see the budget on page 28 of our report, about two point eight, two point three million dollars, excuse me, is going to fund new drinking water pipelines, and the remainder of the additional funding is um adding funding for uh the emergency firefighter water system projects uh to address unforeseen conditions.

The project and the contract is funded by jointly funded by SFPUC uh water capital revenues, which primarily consist of revenue bonds and ECER bonds.

We recommend approval of item six.

Thank you.

I don't see uh name on the roster.

I don't have additional question.

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, that was your opportunity.

Okay, SFGov TV, I'll be using the overhead.

Eileen Voken, CSFN speaking on my own behalf in strong opposition to this contract and its amendment.

It's inconsistent with the CSFN resolution titled Resolution to Expand AWAS to all SF neighborhoods, which is on the overhead.

Well, should be.

Okay, well, I'm ready to anyway.

Oh, is so will San Francisco be the next specific palisades where ocean front homes burn to the ground because LA Fire didn't have the infrastructure uh to use ocean water to fight catastrophic fires.

This is what it looks like, and this is the resolution.

Thank you much, Eileen Booken.

And uh seeing no other speakers, madam chair to completes our queue.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

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

And on that motion to refer to the full board with recommendation vice chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member Sauter, Sodder I, Chair Chan.

Aye, Chan, I we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

Mr.

Clerk, please call item number seven.

Yes, item number seven is a resolution authorizing the recreation and park department to accept and expend the grant from the California Natural Resources Agency in the amount of one million for the general fund specify specified grant for the project of Portsmouth Square Improvement Project, approving the associated grant agreement for a term limit that is effective upon grant agreement execution through March 1st, 2028, and authorizing the recreation and park department to enter into amendments or modifications to the agreement that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities uh of the city and are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the project or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

On behalf of the recreck and Park department, I'm here to request your support for the legislation.

This legislation will allow the uh recreation and park department to accept a $1 million grant for the Portsmouth Square Improvement Project.

It also authorizes the department to enter into a grant agreement with the California Natural Resource Agency and authorizes the general manager to make necessary modifications to the grant agreement as necessary.

Portsman Square is the oldest public public space in San Francisco and predate statehood.

It is located in Chinatown and is surrounded by a disadvantaged community that has a medium household income of 80% of the statewide average, making especially need of this open space.

Started in 2013, which resulted in a park design that will facilitate public use for residents of all ages.

It'll improve the safety and security of the park, improve park aesthetics, and also acknowledge the site's historic and cultural significance.

In 25 or as part of the 25-26 state budget, one million dollars was appropriated for the park.

It is being administered by the California Natural Resource Agency, and as a condition of their them managing the grant, they require we enter into a grant contract with um a very short uh grant performance period.

It's basically less than two years.

Um so as we we are moving forward quickly with um entering into a grant agreement on this uh for this grant on March 19th, the San Francisco Recreation Park Commission adopted resolution 260303 that approves uh the recreation and parks department application for these specified grant funds, and also makes a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to accept and expand the grant funds, authorize the general manager to enter into the grant agreement and negotiate um any agreements with the state concerning the administration of this grant.

This grant does not um require an amendment to the annual salary ordinance.

It also does not allow indirect costs to be built to the grant.

Uh currently the project um uh the notice to proceed for the project will is expected to happen in June of 2026.

The substantial completion of the project would be June 2028.

And of course, these are slightly uh flexible dates, and final completion is targeted for October 2028.

So in closing, I respectfully request your support um for this legislation.

I'm available to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, and Supervisor Souter.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um, and certainly uh supportive of this and thank you, Rec Park, and to our uh state leadership as well, um, to make sure that we were able to secure these funds.

Um, and we are just weeks away from groundbreaking, so uh this is coming at the perfect time.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Uh, I don't see any I don't have an additional question, I don't see any name on the roster.

We'll go to public comment on this item.

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

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is close.

And what is your will, Supervisor Souder?

Um, thank you, Chair Shannon.

I'd like to accept these proposed amendments and send the item to the full board with recommendation.

A roll call, please.

And on that motion that we amend item number seven.

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

Moved by member Sutter.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Aye.

Sauter I, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan.

I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number eight.

Yes, item number eight is a resolution authorizing the Department of Public Works to accept and expend a grant in the amount of up to 14.5 million from the San Francisco Downtown Development Corporation to fund the Powell Street Improvement Project, approving the associated grant agreement pursuant to the charter effective upon approval of the resolution and upon the execution of the grant agreement through June 30th, 2029, and affirming the planning department's determination under the California Environmental Quality Act.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today we have Department of Public Works here.

Uh good morning, supervisors.

I'm Bruce Robertson.

I am Deputy Director of Financial Management and Administration at San Francisco Public Works.

I will be presenting today on this acceptance expend of 14.5 million dollars in funding for the Powell Street Improvement Project from the Downtown Development Corporation.

I want to start here with some renderings of the project that really highlight the transformative nature of the project and how it will provide a key element in the overall revitalization, not just of Powell Street, but of the downtown area, Union Square area in general.

As you can see, the significant improvements of uh cantilevers and lighting improvements and tables and chairs and greenery and just a lot of enhancements to really make it more inviting for both residents, visitors, and all of the people enjoying downtown San Francisco.

Go through some of the goals of this project, of which are many.

It will really extend the historic character of Powell Street at Market Street.

It will increase planting and greenery as much as possible, provide more outdoor seating.

We'll consider building facades as contributing to the overall character of Powell Street, Union Square, and the downtown area.

It will also celebrate the cable car turnaround on Powell Street at Market Street and the ingenuity of that design.

It will also, as I've mentioned, help revitalize downtown San Francisco.

And then a project goal, a little bit different than the others, is to really is complete this project by November of 2027, an ambitious timeline.

The agreement before you today is, as I stated, a 14.5 million dollar agreement through the Downtown Development Corporation.

The Downtown Development Corporation is a nonprofit that was founded in 2025 to revitalize and reimagine downtown through investments and collaboration.

And we've certainly seen here at Public Works a lot of collaboration and good input, not just from the downtown development corporation on this project, but others included in the agreement, it provides public works, the $14.5 million.

It also requires that public works provides within 30 days of the execution of this agreement, a detailed schedule and project budget to be provided to the downtown development corporation.

The city will maintain jurisdiction and control over the Powell Street corridor from Union Square to the Munich cable turnaround.

It also highlights some of the projects in the bottom that I'll go through in more detail coming up.

There's one other element not on the slide that's really important that I want to highlight.

This is the third tranche of money for this project.

The first was $4 million dollars of ProPO money that was allocated by the CTA.

The second was just under that $22 million dollars that we talked about last week for this project.

And this is the third tranche of money, the $14.5 million grant from the Downtown Development Corporation.

And the expenses are shown at a high level.

I'll talk about those in a little bit more detail as well, but roughly $35 million for the construction budget.

Public Works has gone before the Public Works Commission and has already through the commission action approved the construction contract.

So we are now in the pre-construction phase of the project.

The timeline, this is a high level overview of the timeline.

The planning phase is wrapped up, and we're now wrapping up the design phase.

And in fact, we're about to start the pre-construction phase, which is some of the preliminary work that's required on the construction side before you break ground.

We anticipate to break ground in late 2026 or early calendar year 2027.

This project will be, we'll have the holiday moratorium, so we'll do some outreach in the fall of 2026.

And the holiday moratorium will be to ensure that we're working with the stakeholders to minimize any disruption for businesses or community organizations.

And that moratorium is from Thanksgiving through January 1st.

We anticipate, like I say, breaking ground in early 2027, late 2026, with project completion in November of 2027.

So construction for just under a year.

One is above ground and very visible.

The sidewalk replacement, we will do full sidewalk replacement, including the curbs for this entire project.

We will add more ball bouts, curb ramp improvements to minimize pedestrian crossing distances distances.

One of the big things that we'll be working closely with the Union Square Alliance on, there's another part of this that they will help deliver, and that's putting string lights and putting a golden lantern and chandelier over Powell Street.

We will make significant landscaping and site furnishing improvements, and then we will improve the cable car turnaround and work on some of the boarding islands.

That's the more visible elements of it.

There are also three elements that are more below ground infrastructure related that are critical for the success of those projects.

Those are replacing 20 subsidewalk basements that are need significant upgrades and improvements.

Critical for the overall successful delivery of this project.

So I know you've got a packed agenda, so I'll make the presentation short.

Joining me are members from public works project team, OEWD, Union Square Alliance, and others to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you so much.

Thank you.

Do you remember a couple years ago?

We actually had a $2 million Powell Street improvement.

Thank you.

Yay.

Help us understand what happened to that two million dollars and what the work that we have done, or was it somehow incorporated into this 14 now?

Yeah, Laura Larvani TD's Office of Economic and Workforce Development.

Um that two million, a chunk of that two million dollars went to this project and all of the design work that brought us to this moment.

So the a contract for the Union Square Alliance.

They then hired field operations and site lab to build to build the design, etc.

And then we also work ordered some of that money to cover DPW costs for all of the much of the work that has happened over this time to get the get us to a place where we have construction documents and can begin with construction.

And so should I assume that on the slide five that um actually indicating expenses of the total SMA design phase cost?

Um that is that seven million dollars, it's inclusive of the two million dollars that previously allocated by general fund.

That is correct.

Okay.

Thank you.

Uh Supervisor Souter.

Thank you, Chair Shannon.

Um, this is a uh really, really important project that I'm happy to support.

It is also um a very expensive project.

So I'm uh I'm thankful that we are piecing together funding from a number of different sources.

I'm grateful for the partnership of the Union Square Alliance, the partnership, of course, from the San Francisco Downtown Development Corporation.

Um, you know, between this effort and some of the work that the DDC is doing on uh the the downtown business fund, we're we're really having a targeted investment on an important corridor.

So I think we all have high hopes for this.

Um I know this is a extremely aggressive timeline, um, and I'm happy to see that.

I want to push us, I want to challenge us.

Um I am uh as we uh spoke about earlier.

I am um you know very interested in making sure that we're thoughtful about things like the lights, which may not seem like a big deal right now, but the making sure we have the maintenance of those in mind for the future because we've seen other projects which look glamorous on paper, but years later um we find out that there's no ownership of who is in charge of those lights.

We're dealing that with with that in other parts of my district right now.

Um, so I know that you're uh thinking carefully about that.

Um I want to see beautiful curb ramps on every single corner so that it's easy to walk and scroll uh along PAL, and I just look forward to the work ahead on this and thanks to all the partners that have gotten us to this point.

Thank you for your support, Supervisor.

Thank you.

Um just a little bit more about the project budget because last week we allocated, I believe, maybe correct with me if I'm wrong, 40 million.

Uh for this project was just under 22 million, 21.8.

There were some other projects included in that bucket that were part of that transaction.

There was some planning work for Holiday Plaza included in there as well.

Got it.

Thank you.

Um, just wanted to clarify.

Um, and so the that was the Prop B.

Correct.

So the POP is 21.8 or 21.7-ish million.

21.787.

Yeah.

Great.

Thank you.

Uh, and so with that, I don't have any additional question.

Let's go to public comment on this item.

Yes, we're opening public comment on this item number eight.

If we have any members of the public or justice committee.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Uh, my name is Marissa Rodriguez.

I'm the CEO of the Union Square Alliance.

Today is an incredibly exciting day for us in Union Square as it represents what has been a very, very long journey uh pre-pandemic and certainly during the tough times during the pandemic, and to see a project like this uh meet this moment has been very, very um almost overwhelming, uh, but with certainly happiness.

I want to thank all of you for being so supportive during this long journey.

Um I want to certainly thank um the DDC, OEWD, DPW, all of our partners, the mayor's office, Ned Siegel in particular.

14.5 million is going to close the gap that we've been hoping to close to ensure that the gateway to San Francisco remains respectable, amazing, and truly welcoming to all.

This project will support San Francisco as a whole and its recovery.

It is our iconic gateway, and uh sprucing it up in this absolutely extraordinary way is going to make all the difference.

Thank you.

And thank you much, Mercer Rodriguez.

And seeing no other speakers, Madam Chair, that completes our queue.

Seeing no more public comments, public comment is now closed.

Um, what is your will?

I'd like to send this item to the full board with recommendation, please.

A roll call, please.

And on that motion by member Sauter that we refer this resolution to the full board.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Uh Dorsey, aye.

Member Sauter.

Soder.

Aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call items nine and ten together.

Item numbers nine and ten.

Our resolutions retroactively authorizing the Human Services agency to accept and expend grants from the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement for participation in programs.

For a total amount.

Oh, sorry, for the period of October 1st, 2021 through September 30th, 2026.

Item number nine is for participation in a program entitled Housing Assistance for Ukrainians, HAU San Francisco, for a grant increase in the amount of 300,000 for a total amount of approximately 1.7 million for the period of October.

And item number 10 is for a grant through the California Department of Social Services for participation in the program entitled Ukrainian Refugee Support Services Supplemental Funding San Francisco for a total amount of 200,000.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And before we start, I would like to add myself as a co-sponsor to these two items.

In the Richmond, we have a actually a rather large Ukrainian community, immigrants community in in the Richmond.

So I'm very grateful for the work that the department is doing, and I'm also grateful for the mayor for accepting these grant.

And so with that human services agency.

Oh, sorry, Vice Chair Dorsey.

I will I also represent a district that includes the uh Ukrainian Church, St.

Michael's.

So I would like to be added as a co-sponsor as well.

And so with that, um the floor is yours.

Okay.

And good afternoon, Chair Chan, committee members, and thank you for your sponsorship.

My name is Celia Pedroza, and I'm the budget director at the Human Services Agency.

I'm here presenting for your retroactive approval to accept and expend resolutions for grants that we were awarded to provide services to Ukrainian and non-Ukrainian individuals who fled the war in Ukraine.

These two grants were originally part of a nationwide effort to support these individuals displaced by the war in their homes, home countries.

The goal is to provide them resettlement assistance and linkages to maintain benefits so that they can achieve long-term stability and self-sufficiency in our country.

We learned about these refugee grants unfortunately after the fiscal year had started, which is why I'm here before you today requesting your retroactive approval of these resolutions.

So starting off first with item nine, we're requesting your approval of an AE resolution for the housing assistance for Ukrainian grants.

This is reflective of an increase of $300,000 and brings the total grant amount to almost $1.8 million.

The funds are available for us to use through September 30th, 2026.

This funding was awarded to HSA by the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement, and it's being used to provide direct financial support towards housing related costs, including rental subsidies and utilities.

We're administering these funds through a contract with our community provider, uh mission neighborhood centers, and we expect to serve about 56 clients this fiscal year.

Additionally, these clients are connected to intensive case management services that are provided by a separate community provider, which I will discuss under the next item.

Under that item, item 10, we're requesting your retroactive approval of the Ukrainian refugee support services supplemental funding grant, totaling 200,000.

These funds are available to use through September 30th, 2026, and was also awarded by the Federal Office of Refugee Resettlement.

The funds provide resettlement services via in the form of case management and linkages to public benefits and specifically targeting the clients that are served under the grant described under item nine.

Together, the services are meant to support and strengthen the ability of refugees and their families to not only help them achieve and maintain self-sufficiency, but also help their families stabilize and successfully integrate into the San Francisco community.

We're administering the services for uh the case management work through a contract with our community partner Ariba Juntos and also expect to serve 54 clients uh this fiscal year.

Uh your committee's approval of the housing assistance for Ukrainians and the refugee support services supplemental funding will enable our agency to maximize this last bit of federal funding available for services for the Ukrainian uh refugee population.

And with that, we respectfully request your approval of these two A and E resolutions.

Thank you.

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

Yes, we're now opening public comment on both these item numbers nine and ten.

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

Madam Chair, we have no speakers.

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move these two items to full board with recommendation and then roll call, please.

And on the motion refer both resolutions.

Uh with recommendation.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Hi.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Soder, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, aye.

We have three ayes.

The motion passes.

Thank you.

And Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 11.

Yes, item number 11 is a resolution approving amendment number one to the agreement between the city and county acting by and through the Department of Public Health and Crestwood Behavioral Health Inc.

to provide crisis stabilization unit at 822 Geary Street to extend the term by two years from June 30th, 2026 for a new term of March 1st, 2025 through June 30th, 2028, and to increase the amount by approximately 17.2 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 26.2 million, and to authorize DPH to enter into amendments or modifications to the agreement that do not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the agreement or this resolution.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And uh we have behavior health services here.

Thank you, Chair uh Chair Chan.

Um, Vice Chair Dorsey and uh Supervisor Soder.

My name is Emma Garcia, I'm the program manager for the crisis stabilization uh unit at A22 Geary.

I'm here to uh seek approval for a contract extension to extend this contract for an additional two years through uh June 30th of 2028.

As you can see on the screen, um, this contract is just amending the not to exceed amount to uh fund the program for two additional terms.

Uh this project in total uh provides uh crisis stability services for people who are seeking voluntary care at Hugiri 24 or 7 with voluntary medically staffed uh support.

Uh next slide, please.

I should also look at my own slides.

I'm realizing it's hard to look at the screen.

So crisis stability services are rapid stabilization for people who are experiencing an acute mental health crisis or uh require intervention.

Uh the program was redesigned to ensure that we have the capacity to receive services.

I'm sorry, to provide service to drop offs from first responders.

The program serves as a local medical emergen medical emergency uh service agency or LEMSA designated uh TAD site, trio shall alternative destination that's authorized to receive uh ambulances for people who are calling 911 directly for a call for service.

Uh the program is certified by DHCS as a crisis stabilization unit, and the program this means that the program is eligible to receive Medicaid reimbursement.

So this program is funded by propsy and is eligible to be reimbursed as well by the state.

Uh again, the services really are at the core uh intervention, which includes psychiatric assessment, intervention, counseling, medication uh management, medication administration, uh as well as treatment coordination, which includes discharge planning.

We try to uh engage clients and get them into service as soon as possible.

And the next slides, uh, I believe most of you have toured the site, but here are just some photos of ETU Giri.

Uh for those of you who may remember, this was the old Goodwill site on Geary Street that closed several years ago.

Uh the site has the capacity to serve up to 16 people at one time, uh, mostly in recliners.

Uh this is not really a residential setting, but more of a treatment setting uh that provides uh care, but we do have a bed to serve clients who might have ambulation issues.

Uh in conclusion, you know, we humbly uh request approval of this contract, and I'm here to answer any questions uh that you may have thank you.

Item 11 is a resolution that approves an amendment to DPH's contract with Crestwood Behavioral Health to operate the crisis stabilization center at 822 Gary.

Uh, the amendment extends the agreement two years through June 2028.

Uh, you can see on page 32 of our report the preliminary utilization data of the site.

The program did just uh start last year.

Um, the program has served 686 unduplicated clients or about 1300 emissions in this fiscal year.

Only six percent of those were diverted to psychiatric emergency services, uh, which is the goal of this uh program is to be a diversion from that uh treatment.

And we also know in our report that psychiatric emergency services cost about twice as much as this program does.

You can see the fiscal impact of the contract extension on page 33 of our report.

This is a $7.6 million a year contract uh funded about 50% by proposition C homeless gross receipts tax and 50% by Medica.

We recommend approval of item eleven.

Thank you.

And Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Um this site sits in my district by uh just a few feet, and so it's um a project and a site that uh we've been following uh with interest.

Uh you know, I know there's not a full term yet to see detailed performance results, but I look forward to seeing those soon.

Um, you know, the early numbers here show that this is serving its intended purpose, kind of being that space uh before or below an emergency room and uh serving its purpose of diversion and treatment um kind of in that in that space between.

Um so I look forward to this continuing to serve an important role.

I have heard nothing um but positive feedback from neighbors and nearby small businesses, uh, but we'll continue to monitor and watch this as it goes forward.

Thanks.

Thank you.

And um I don't have an additional question.

Thank you so much for your presentation.

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

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

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 comments now closed.

What is your will to advisor Sauter?

Yes, I'd like to move this forward to the full board with recommendation, please.

A roll call, please.

And on that motion by member Sauter that we refer this resolution to the full board with the recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, aye, member Sauter.

Sauter, aye, Chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call items 12 and 13 together.

Item numbers 12 and 13 are resolutions approving amendments to the following agreements between the city and candy acting by and through the Department of Public Health and Medline Industries Inc.

to update the respective medline master distribution agreements and to authorize DPH to enter into amendments or modifications to the agreements, had to not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities to the city and are necessary are necessary to effectuate the purposes of the agreements or the respective resolutions.

Item number 12 approves amendment number three to an agreement for low unit of measure distribution of medical, surgical, and laboratory supplies to extend the term by four years from June 30th, 2026 for a total term of July 1st, 2021 through June 30th, 2030, to increase the amount by approximately 156.2 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 301.5 million.

And item number 13 approves amendment number four to an agreement for bulk medical, surgical, and laboratory supplies and services to extend the term by four years from June 30th, 2026 for a new term of July 1st, 2021 through June 30th, 2030.

And to increase the amount by approximately 70.8 million for a new total not to exceed amount of approximately 165 million.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And we have San Francisco Health Network here.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, uh supervisors.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh my name is Nader Hamud.

I'm the Associate Chief Operating Officer for the San Francisco Health Network.

Part of my areas uh of supervision is the supply chain for the Department of Public Health.

And uh as mentioned, we will be uh going through the contracts that uh with a prime uh vendor medline uh that supplies us with uh all of our medical supplies for all of the department of public health.

We'll go through two contracts.

We'll start with the first one, which is we call it the LUM, which is the law unit uh of measure.

The contract is contractor is MUD line industries incorporation, uh contract amendment amount of 156 million dollars uh total not to exceed 301, uh 562,000.

The timeline is uh for the total term to end in June 30, 2030.

Uh contract summary is uh MUDLINE will be providing a law unit of measure distribution of medical surgical and laboratory supplies across all of DPH sites that includes Zuckerberg San Francisco General Hospital, Laguna Honda Hospital and Rehabilitation Center, Population Health Division, Behavioral Health Services, Jail Health Services, San Francisco Health Network Clinics and Practices all across the city.

Practically anything that's related to public health in the city, this will be serving them.

Uh to point out LUM, low unit of measure means it's the high cost items usually, and we had to control them by unit.

Uh, examples are catheter surgical instruments and switcher packs that also can be impacted by expiry death, something like that.

So these uh this is the first contract.

Jumping to the second contract, which is the same contract or MEDLINE, the uh contract amendment amount we're asking for is 70 million A35,000, uh total not to exceed 165 million and 38,000.

Timeline for the contract also to expire in June 30, 2030.

Uh MUDLINE will provide the bulk medical surgical and laboratory supplies and services across DPH for the same sites.

The bulk is kind of the opposite of LUM, it's where we purchase low cost unit items in bulk quantities uh like large packets and deliver to the hospitals so we can't keep them and supply, and these usually do not get impacted by expired this, things like that.

So there's no loss in us keeping large quantities.

And uh those are the summary of the contracts.

We respectfully across your approval for these contracts amendments.

Any questions?

Thank you.

Apologies.

Uh items 12 and 13 are two resolutions that approve amendments to DPH's contract with Medline Industries.

We show the budget for each contract on page 39 of our report.

They are funded by the general funding.

We recommend approval of both resolutions.

Thank you.

Thank you for that work.

It's very important.

I know it's routine, but it's it's must be done.

So we appreciate it.

And let's go to public comment on these two items.

Yes, we're opening public comment for both these items 12 and 13.

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

Seeing no public comments, public comment is now closed.

Colleagues, I would like to move these two items to full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

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

Aye.

Chan, I we have three ayes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

Clerk, please call item number 14.

This item number 14 is a resolution authorizing adoption of the San Francisco Behavioral Health Services Act, three-year integrated plan for fiscal years twenty twenty six to twenty twenty nine.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

And today, again, we have Behavioral health Services here.

Yes, hi.

Good afternoon.

My name is Jessica Brown.

I'm the director of the Office of Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion in the Behavioral Health Services Act for the Department of Public Health Behavioral Service.

Hello again.

Uh I'll be presenting to you uh this afternoon on the Behavioral Health Services Act integrated plan for fiscal year 26 through 29.

Today's presentation will provide an overview of the Behavioral Health Services Act, the impacts of Proposition 1, and the proposed BHSA Behavioral Health Services Act budget and programmatic changes, as well as feedback from the community planning process.

This work reflects one of the most significant restructuring restructuring of the efforts for the behavioral health funding since the original Act of Mental Health Services Act was approved in 2004.

Throughout this process, our department has worked to balance the state directive funding requirements, financial sustainability, and also continuing the services and community engagement transparency as well.

Next slide, please.

Oh, thank you.

So the agenda will also walk through again the Behavioral Health Services Act, the overgroup overview of the integrated plan, as well as the proposed programmatic changes for fiscal year 26 through 29, and any feedback that the community has provided for us.

Next slide.

So proposition one significantly changed how counties are able to utilize the Mental Health Services Act funding through the state of California.

Under the Behavioral Health Services Act, counties are now required to allocate funding towards housing intervention, full service partnership, as well as behavioral health services and support.

These changes reduce the local flexibility and requires county discounties statewide to reassess prevention, innovation, and also workforce investments previously supported by the Mental Health Services Act.

Importantly, the Behavioral Health Services did not decrease rather than our allowable funding.

So our funding still remained the same, despite now the state's uh recommendations or requirements to really focus on direct services and housing.

Next slide.

The original Mental Health Services Act created flexibility for counties to basically use behavioral health funding to focus on heavily on prevention and community-based intervention.

Proposition one restructures that framework into the Behavioral Health Services Act, which expands target populations to include more substance use, disorder support, children and youth, veterans, as well as individuals experiencing chronic homelessness.

The new state directives funding allocations and county planning reporting requirements as well.

So this expands our accountability to ensure that we are reporting on the entire behavioral health services budget.

These changes also require for realignment to allow that our programs really actually meet the state law under the Behavioral Health Services Act.

Next slide, please.

Counties are now required to also or have always been required, but now this is more of a robust requirement, to complete a community planning process as a part of the integrated plan.

We have conducted over 15 uh community planning meetings, targeted stakeholder outreach, and also public common opportunities, as well as partnering with the Behavioral Health Commission to provide more robust feedback on our plan as well as our spending as a whole for behavioral health services.

This also includes other stakeholders such as union organizations, labor organizations, Medi-Cal managed plans, and also other city departments as part of our community-based organizations to be able to provide more feedback for our integrated plan.

The final plan must be submitted to the Department of Health Care Services with the Board of Supervisors approval by June 30th of 2026.

Next slide.

So the Behavioral Health Services Act represents approximately 10% of the overall behavioral health budget.

San Francisco's behavioral health systems is supported through a combination of Medical revenue revenue, local funding, state alignment, and also proposition C grants and BHSA funding.

And again, our the funding from the Behavioral Health Services Act is only 10%, and we expect it to not see much growth because it's very volatile.

The importance is that the BHSA is only a portion of the broader behavioral health system and investment portfolio, which is why we've had to make some of the programmatic changes for how we're funding using the Behavioral Health Services Act.

Next slide.

So with the changes to Proposition 1, DPH used a conservative fiscal planning approach due to the volatility of the Behavioral Health Services Fund.

Our funding tends to go up and down depending on how the millionaires do in California.

That allows us to really plan conservatively.

Also, our funding is can change based off of how much we collect from taxes.

And so it basically allows us to really look at long-term sustainability of our funding consideration while also meeting the state requirements.

So again, our BHSA revenue fluctuates significantly year to year.

Our department really looks at the projected revenues, the historical expenditures, as well as carry forward balances, and medical revenue generation opportunities as well.

So our goal was to really avoid overcommitting future revenues in the changing fiscal environment.

Next slide.

This slide reflects the new state mandate.

As you can see, BHSA allocation has changed our ways that we actually allocate funding.

30% must go to housing intervention, 35% must go into expanding full service partnership, which is a form of intensive case management support, and then 35 of that percent must also go to behavioral health services and support.

These categories significantly change from the former Mental Health Services Act, which allowed us to have five funding categories compared to now only having three.

As a result, counties have less flexibility to support prevention, intervention, and workforce programs as previously funded under the Mental Health Services Act.

Next slide.

So this comparison on this slide really demonstrates the changes, the structural shift from the Mental Health Services Act to the Behavioral Health Services Act.

Under the Mental Health Services Act, San Francisco had a greater flexibility in providing prevention and early intervention, innovations and workforce development as well as community-based programming programming.

Under BHSA, the funding must now align to state directive categories.

This restructuring requires DPH to rebalance programming and funding and allocations to remain in compliance with the state law.

Next slide.

Next slide, please.

On this slide, the program really identified here reflects areas where funding is no longer allowable through the new proposition one behavioral health services act categories, and where there's overlapping in investments.

Many impacted agencies continue to receive substantial DPH funding through outpatient behavioral health, full service partnership, crisis response, wellness services, and housing and substance use programs.

These reductions reflect restructuring of allowable funding categories under Proposition One, rather than the reduction of the importance of the services.

Next slide.

So this is also going to get talk about, we want to talk about the feedback that we receive through our community planning process.

DPH received extensive feedback from providers, consumers, community organizations, as well as commissioners and other stakeholders.

Key themes that we got from our feedback included support to for prevention services, peer and family support services, culturally responsive programming, housing investment, and also services for youth, immigrants, veterans, and justice involved population.

Next slide.

This shows how we have integrated the feedback into our actual plan that we must submit to the state.

So we definitely appreciate this significance of community engagement throughout the process.

The feedback received um will contain informing and implementation and planning and future behavior health planning efforts.

We are revisiting portions of the written plan to have a better highlight of these investments as well as the community priorities.

And we also know that unfortunately, due to the structure now set through proposition one, some of our funding allocations have changed significantly through the state mandates.

No additional programming or funding changes are proposed at this time, and again, it's really based off of the volatility of our funding.

Next slide, last slide.

Thank you again for your time for the proposed uh fiscal year 2629 behavioral health service interacted plan.

Again, DPH remains committed to behavioral health equity, culturally responsive services, and transparency, as well as our continued partnerships, partnerships with our communities, and we're happy to answer any questions.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Vice Chair Dorsey.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

So I I appreciate ever all the work that you're doing on this, negotiating the changes that are coming from the Prop One in the state.

I see that some of the investments in substance use disorder services are outside of the BHSA.

And you pointed to prior increases through local sources, I think particularly like Prop C and opioid settlement dollars.

Yes.

Um can you report on the outcomes of those investments?

I'm sorry, so that's there a methodology for the things that we are funding through like our Prop C and opioid settlement dollars for um SUD investments.

Do we have outcome how are we reporting outcomes on that?

Yes, we do report outcomes as far as the methodology is how we are allocating funding to those services, it's really based off of substance use and support.

Again, with the expansion of proposition one, BHSA is now also able to also supply uh funding and support for substance use and also overdose prevention strategies.

And so we basically took the approach of looking at programs that we currently fund through the BHSA and also uh partnering those with other overdose and proposition props C dollars as well, too.

And those things may change a bit because of, as you all know, the local budget crisis that we're in right now, and so really looking at opportunities how we can expand statewide dollars medical revenue generation to also supplement those programs as well too.

Okay, um, have other funding sources been reprogrammed to fill any of the gaps in prevention funding?

Yes, so we do currently still um provide funding for prevention, particularly for substance use and overdose prevention efforts.

So utilizing overdose settlement dollars as well as proper props C dollars to can maintain our prevention services.

And even though uh BHSA is no longer prioritizing prevention efforts, we still focus on early intervention.

So we're moving more from away from individual um population focused programs to more of community-based population organizations to really look at how we can do more early intervention work.

So we're not essentially getting rid of prevention dollars per se with uh the state funding, we're just reallocating them to more early intervention services while we use our other funding sources to maintain our prevention uh services that we have.

Okay.

Um I know that the integrated plan identifies approximately five million dollars in workforce education and training reductions over two years.

I'm just wondering if it's possible to clarify whether there is a program at City College.

Yes.

Um that is the addiction and recovery counseling certificate program, and I'm hearing from a lot of providers that cuts to that is really hurting their ability.

Yeah.

Um, and I I have heard from providers who say, you know, sometimes when we talk, especially in this realm of drug treatment, when we talk about beds, it's just a piece of furniture if we don't have somebody who's, you know, staff staffing it, and that really is the bottleneck.

Can you help me understand how what we're doing to support those kinds of workforce development?

Yeah, absolutely.

So that that program has been just a staple for our B Mental Health Services Act.

It was one of the programs that we were able to use that those dollars to really be flexible and innovative as the county.

It's been extremely instrumental in us being able to hire people with lived experience also into the system as well.

And with the changes to proposition one, unfortunately, the state is now having us reallocate our dollars to more direct services.

And so that really impacted our workforce education and training dollars that we actually use to fund that city college program.

In the interim, there are going to be state dollars that we have been encouraging other providers to apply to, including City City College.

Is going to be having a grant where providers can uh apply directly to get more workforce education dollars from the state directly because we're having to use uh BHSA for more housing and full service partnership and substance use initiatives.

So the state has is going to have other opportunities, even for our providers that do a lot of primary prevention work to where they are able to apply to the state directly for funding versus having to go through the county.

So we are hoping, um, and I know with City College we have extended their contract for another year.

We are hoping that there are some other strategies in that meantime to help continue the service because we do know how vital that is, and we are directing folks to be able to apply to the state if they can to be able to sustain their programs.

Okay.

Could I just put it out there?

If there is something that you see that we can do as a board to ask by resolution, the legislature to increase funding or just any kind of advocacy that we can do at the state level just to make sure that these really worthy programs are funded.

Yeah, we would love increased funding.

We only get about 72 to 80 million, and again, it's about 10% of our budget.

Um there's an uh formula that the state uses on why certain counties get certain amounts of funding, of course, due to proximity, but we do also understand that San Francisco has a lot of unique needs to other counties, and so if there could be a way to increase our budget, I know there's a couple of pieces of legislation going to the state, but it would be helpful to have that increase because unfortunately with the changes, we're not seeing any more money coming in from the state.

So we're having to work with what we got, and essentially that's why some of our programs had to take a couple of hits.

Thank you.

Can we um discuss a little bit about the reduction uh on slide 12 that you presented?

Um help me understand that I'm right now seeing the workforce education and training that 3.9 million dollars that it's ending in about a month, and then subsequently there's uh whole lot list.

My assumption is that $3.9 million worth of workforce education and training, you're ending it by June 30th.

You know, and then of course the early childhood prevention and social socially isolated adults, and then that is in addition, another 1.1 million dollars of workforce education and training that will be then also ending on June 20 uh June 30th, the following year.

So, for example, that means about approximately five million dollars of workforce education and training are going to be in like in reduction for the next two fiscal years.

Am I understanding that slide correctly?

Yes, and so unfortunately, we've had to take that five million dollars and reallocate to housing to meet the housing requirements.

So when we did this this fiscal modeling of looking at reductions, as I mentioned earlier, we focused on what programs either meet the requirements of the state requirements for early intervention and workforce.

We also looked on programs that were duplicates, so we had a lot of programs that were doing duplicate services, seeing the same uh same clients that other programs were seeing as well.

So we want it to be more cost efficient.

Um, in addition to that, um, there's a difference between where there's some programs that will be sunsetting this year in a couple of weeks because of their pro their contracts actually closing or ending, and then we gave it another year again to see what our our funding would look like because of the volatility.

And so all these cuts unfortunately are having to go towards uh re being redirected to our housing initiatives.

We were under the required the requirement amount, which is has to be 35%.

We were we were under a lot, we were under investing in housing, even though we have a pretty large housing portfolio.

And so that's why we had to look at some of the lower threshold, important, but also to programs that could benefit from other state dollars, which is why we had to go through this route of really looking at the workforce development dollars and the prevention dollars.

But when you say your housing portfolio, do you mean that a housing portfolio under um under DPH and under HSA, or is it housing portfolio that's also inclusive of Department of Homelessness and support of housing?

Yeah, great question.

So we actually have a portfolio under the Behavioral Health Services Act.

We house about we have about a hundred and ninety-one units that we partner with HSH to provide a work order for our clients.

So our clients that leave a full service partnership or they uh need some of our uh intensive case management, they have access to housing units.

And so um in the past, we've always had a pretty strong uh transitional housing, permanent supportive housing, as well as uh providing support for emergency stabilization units, and even then, even though we had that robust housing portfolio, it still did not make the allocations of 35%.

We were about under, I would say 20%.

According to the state, according to the state, yes, yes.

So the state is looking at BHSA funding and saying, yes, you may have other housing initiatives.

I see, but your money needs to go towards this a little bit more exactly, into housing.

Exactly.

So that's why we had to make the decision because we historically in San Francisco, because of our community, put a lot of funding into prevention and and um early intervention work as well as workforce, and so it is also very devastating for us because we funded these programs well for over 20 years, right?

So yeah, and so then that's my question.

And you don't have to answer it because you're only the portion uh of behavior health um, but I think this is probably more of a question for the mayor's office, and along with like Department of Public Health.

Again, I'm not expecting an answer today, but if we were to because the state mandate that right now that behavior health needs to meet that standard of 35% in its spending for housing, and so but here now we're cutting workforce education and training and early uh childhood prevention, and then the subsequently is the also the school-based wellness program.

So, are we actually offset these cuts?

I mean, I totally get it, it can't come from the behavior house with meeting the mandate by the state, but then when we we do the reduction of these programming, as you indicated, some of them it's been around decades long.

Are we offsetting somewhere else from other part of like department of public health or human services agency budget?

Or are we just cutting these all together?

We are cutting this all together.

So that's a problem for me right now.

Like that's alarming.

So I I don't mean to put you on the spot, but I just kind of want to identify the fact that like I I totally get we're have to meet the state funding uh mandates of 35% of spending from the behavior how, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we're not we're we're cutting these, we're reducing these programs not because these programs do not work, that we're cutting them because we don't have the funding, well, we it can't come from behavior how.

So the question is then is the department of public health and everybody else offsetting this for this integrated plan.

So I'm concerned about this integrated plan, not because I am in the disagreement of the behavior health plan that it's in created the integrated plan.

It just feels like I don't think that I can be in agreement of just go ahead and cut these without knowing what happened to these programs.

Yeah, absolutely, and what we had to also do is because we have to look at the local funds, so the cuts in the local fund also impact our state funds with us having to reallocate to others.

So it the I guess the answer would be is to well, not the answer, but yes, if there could be other options and the other options that we're providing our providers are the state funding.

Because the state funding isn't impacted, and they are, I think the state's purpose was to um really focus on how counties are spending the state dollars for direct services and also drawing down medical funding, and also to which is why they created these other subsets, if you will, of grant funding for that so that providers can apply to.

So again, HCI with the workforce education training, um, and then also the Department of Public Health has a lot of population focused prevention grant dollars.

They have about a hundred and thirty-four million dollars that they're going to be able to um solicit to providers to be able to apply to.

So I think the the goal was for the state, nothing the goal was for the state was to really be able to efficiently utilize BHSA funding.

San Francisco has never had a problem with recidivism, or sorry, uh, with our funding being uh sent back to the state.

We've always been able to spend the overspend sometimes, and I think what it is now is really trying to ensure that counties are accountable and making sure that those dollars that are non-Medi-Cal billable are able to be used more efficiently efficiently, which is why they have these other state grants.

Totally, I understand.

I think that it's like the population that been served by these programs that is funded by behavior how, that either they actually should go or I want to see how they're actually being managed or supported by, for example, workforce education and training, are they actually being funded or somehow like reallocate that programming or managements that can still support the same population by OEWD, and then early prevention that actually being like going to then early department of early childhood and then social isolated adults and actually going to DOS?

Like, you know, not going to DAS, but then how do we offset those funding?

Yeah, I don't expect you to answer today.

I just wanted to put a notes for everybody for including especially for Department of Public Health, and then as well as for human services agency, does the mayor's budget office want to respond to that or provide any comments?

Hi, Eliza Pew with the Mayor's Budget Office.

Um Chair Chan, can you repeat the question?

Sorry.

The question is that in, you know, as we can as we learn from the plan today that behavior how services that with these reductions on slice 12 that's inclusive of workforce education training, early childhood prevention.

Seeing that at least for the workforce education and training, it's now five million at least five million dollars reduction, but it's because they have to meet the state mandate for reimbursement.

Will then the Department of Public Health or Human Service Agency through the mayor that to offsets these reduction by from somewhere else.

Thank you, Supervisor Chan.

Um Santiago Silva from the mayor's budget office.

I think we will get back to you with this question, uh, because yeah, we will.

Wait, no, totally I don't I understand.

I just wanted to let's let's make notes and pin that thought.

Thank you.

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

Yes, we're opening public comment on this item number 14.

If you 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 have reservation about where we're at, but then I also understand that for the plan itself, um, as it currently presented, I'm fine with it.

I'm happy to move this forward with recommendation.

Um, but I I just wanted to on the record that I have concerns about the reduction.

Yeah, thank you.

And so with that, uh, a motion to move this plan to full full board with recommendation and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to refer to the full board with recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

And Dorsey, Member Sauter.

Sorter I.

Channel, I we have three eyes.

Okay, items 15 through 19.

Uh item number 15.

Is a resolution approving the first amendment to the contract between Dish SF and Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing for property management Services at six buildings, increasing the agreement amount by approximately $15.3 million for a new total amount not to exceed approximately 25.3 million, extending the contract term by 18 months from uh June 30th, 2026 for a total term of July 1st, 2025 through December 31st, 2027, and authorizing HSH to enter into any amendments or modifications to the amendment that did not materially increase the obligations nor liabilities or materially decreased the benefits of the city or are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreement.

Item number 16 and 17 are resolutions approving the following between St.

Vincent DePaul Society of San Francisco at the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and authorizing HSH to enter into amendments or modifications that now materially increase the obligations or liabilities or materially decrease the benefits of the city are necessary or advisable to effectuate the purposes of the agreements.

Item number 16 is for operations and support services at the division circle navigation center, extending the term by 36 months from June 30th, 2026 for a total term of July 1st, 2025 through June 30, 2029, and increasing the contract amount by approximately 27.5 million for a new total amount not to exceed approximately 37 million.

And item number 17 is for emergency shelter operations and support services at multi-service center south for a term of July 1st, 2026 through June 30, 2029 for a total amount not to exceed approximately 35.5 million.

Items 18 and 19 are resolutions approving amendments to the grant agreements between Senator Loyne Housing Clinic Inc.

and the Department of Homelessness and Support of Housing for the following.

And increasing the agreement amount by approximately 18, sorry, 8.2 million for a total uh for a new total amount not exceed 42.5 million in uh item number 19 is a resolution approving the third amendment to a grant agreement for master lease stewardship property management and support services at 16 permanent supportive housing sites extending the term by 18 months from June 30th, 2026 for a total term of July 1st, 2020 uh yeah, 2020 through December 31st, 2027, increasing the agreement amount by approximately 61.9 million for a new total amount not to exceed approximately 303.6 million, madam chair.

Thank you.

And we have the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing here.

And I think the way we're gonna approach this is if it's okay.

Let's go through one presentation for all the items, and then we'll go to because I know not all items have, actually, they all do have BLA report.

So let's go through with the entire package and then we'll go to BLA together.

Wonderful.

Thank you, Chair Chan.

Supervisors Emily Cohen with the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing.

I'm here today with several items, and I'll, as the chair indicated, run through them as a group.

The first item before you is a resolution that authorizes HSH to enter into the first amendment to our grant agreement, excuse me, our contract agreement with DIS DISH SF for property management at six supportive housing sites in our community.

This contract extends the term to December 31st, 2027, and increases the not to exceed amount to approximately 25.4 million dollars.

This contract was heard and approved by the homelessness oversight commission in May.

The grant agreement covers uh funds DISH SF to provide property management and master lease stewardship for over 450 units of permanent supportive housing across six sites.

As a provider, DISH SF stands out for its tenant-centered program model, and I want to take a moment to highlight the excellent programming and community um events that they that they center in the work that they do uh to celebrate tenants and promote health and well-being.

And so those are some of the images we've included here.

DISH was created in uh 2006 as a partnership with public health, the Department of Public Health to provide skilled property management for supportive housing.

When the Department of Homelessness was created in 2016, we inherited these agreements, and after about 18 years as operating with uh Tides as the fiscal sponsor, DISH SF became their own independent organization, and HSH now directly contracts with them.

As I mentioned previously, this contract covers six sites.

In last fiscal year, Dish served over 480 tenants at these sites.

You'll see here that over 60% of the residents at Dish sites are older adults over age 55, and Dish does an exceptional job of tenant stabilization.

On average, their tenants have been there for six years.

I also have several photos here to include in the package from each of the six sites included in this contract.

I will move to the contracts with St.

Vincent DePaul Society next.

We have two contracts before you today with St.

Vincent DePaul Society.

So the first is of the first amendment.

Oh, and I should have said on the DISH site, we also have staff from Dish here to answer any questions that you might have.

We also have staff from St.

Vincent DePaul Society as well as Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

So if there are questions for the providers.

So this first contract is for operations of the Division Circle Navigation Center, and this is a first amendment to that agreement.

It extends the agreement to June 30th, 2029, and increases the not to exceed amount to approximately 37 million dollars.

And this contract was heard and approved by the Homelessness Oversight Commission in May.

Over the last fiscal year, the site has served over 800 unique guests.

And Division Circle has been a really good example of a functioning low-barrier shelter that really combines amenities with a welcoming culture and environment to offer flexibility to guests, allows them to bring in partners, pets, and possessions to reduce barriers to leaving encampments or uh the streets.

And so this provides this next couple of slides provide some images of the Division Circle NAV Center.

This was, I think, our first sprung structure shelter and has really lovely community space, high ceilings, great light, and I will stop there on Division Circle.

Oh, sorry, and move into MSC South.

So Multi-Service Center South or MSC South is another long-standing shelter program operated by St.

Vincent DePaul Society.

This is a new contract with St.

Vincent's, even though they've been running the shelter since the late 80s, and it would run until June 30th, 2029 with a not-to-exceed amount of approximately 35.5 million dollars.

This contract was heard and approved by the Homelessness Oversight Commission in May.

This contract funds similarly to Division Circle shelter operations and support services to nearly 330 guests at MSC South.

St.

Vincent de Paul's has operated MSC South since 1989.

It's one of the largest shelters in San Francisco and in Northern California.

It is currently undergoing significant rehab to make it more ADA accessible, improve seismic structure, and to improve the bathrooms.

And we look forward to the construction being done this fall and being able to re-expand capacity.

Last fiscal year, the shelter served over 1,400 unique guests.

And again, this slide shows some photos.

This is much more of a traditional shelter model with bunk beds in congregate facilities, a large collaborative dining area, big uh kitchen, community space, and that is the final on St.

Vincent de Paul.

Now we'll move to my final set of contracts.

So the final two contracts before you today are agreements between the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing and the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

The first of which is for the Crown Winton and National Hotels, and it's the second amendment to our existing agreement.

It extends the agreement till December 31st, 2027, and increases the not to exceed amount to approximately 42.5 million.

This contract was heard and approved by the homelessness oversight commission in May.

Excuse me.

This contract funds property management, support service, and masterly stewardship at three supportive housing sites.

And this includes 24 hour desk coverage, janitorial services, case management.

A couple things to highlight.

You'll see the communal kitchen and the private units, community space at the Winton, and a private room at the Winton, and then the national, which you'll see the community kitchen and one of the private rooms.

Moving on to the larger agreement, this final agreement is between HSH and the Tenderloin Housing Clinic.

This is the third amendment to our existing agreement for operations of 16 supportive housing sites.

This agreement extends the term to December 31st, 2027 and increases the not to exceed amount to three approximately 303 million dollars.

This was heard and approved by the commission in May.

This grant agreement similarly funds support services, property management, and master lease stewardship for 16 sites with over 1,500 units of housing in them.

THC has served 1,583 tenants.

33% are African American and 50% are over the age of 55, so really reflecting the population of people we see experiencing and exiting homelessness.

This lease also, or this agreement also includes three hotels that are considered a step-up housing.

This is the Edward, the Cal Drake, and the Mayfair, and these sites are specifically for permanent supportive housing tenants who still need the affordability and the support, but not as much case management as other folks.

So it's a step towards independent living, sometimes called step up, sometimes called housing ladder.

But three of these portfolios or three of the buildings in this portfolio reflect that model.

The others reflect traditional supportive housing.

The average tenancy here you'll see is six years, and only two evictions across the says 16 years, but it's the 16 buildings, and really an impressive job done by THC to stabilize and provide community within these buildings.

And these again, each page reflects images of the 16 different buildings from the contract agreement.

And after the BLA, I'm happy to take any questions that you have.

Thank you.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

Christina Malamot from the budget and legislative analyst office.

I'm going to talk about items 15, 18, and 19 together, because they're related services, and then I'll talk about items 16 and 17.

So items 15, 18, and 19 are all amendments to existing agreements for permanent supportive housing master lease sites to extend the term of the agreements by 18 months.

Item 15 is an agreement with Dish SF.

This is for property management services only, does not include support services at six sites.

According to program monitoring results, the program missed two objectives related to failure to collect 90% of tenant rent, which is a problem across the permanent supportive housing portfolio, and also did not meet their target for occupancy rate of 97%.

The actual occupancy rate was 87%.

A few of these buildings serve clients with higher medical and acuity needs, and I understand it takes longer to identify clients for those units.

On page 45 of our report, item 18 is an agreement with Tinderloin Housing Clinic for three hotels, the Crown Winton and National for Property Management and Support of Services.

According to their program monitoring results, they missed targets related to uh turning over units in a timely manner and also collecting 90% of tenant rent.

There were additional findings for this program related to incomplete documentation of tenant files, so you know, not having evidence of eligibility review or supervisor review of the files, and some of those findings were repeat findings from the prior year.

Um so there's HSH is still kind of in the program monitoring process.

THC has not uh responded to these findings yet, but what we understand that HSH plans to implement a corrective action plan for this program.

Annual city funding for this program is 7 million funded by the general fund and Prop C as shown in exhibit four of page 62 of our report.

And then item 19 is another agreement with THC.

This is for 16 hotels for property management support services.

Uh program monitoring results were good for this program and showed an improvement from last year, particularly related to conditions of the common areas.

However, they need to improve outreach to complete service plans and also improve the timeline to turnover units.

This is a larger program.

It's 45 million dollars in annual city funding funded by the general funds, ACHSH fund, which is formerly the CARE Not Cash program, and proposition C, as shown in exhibit three on page 70 of our report.

We recommend approval of these three items 15, 18, and 19.

And then items 16 and 17 are both agreements with St.

Vincent's DePaul, one for shelter and for navigation services.

Item 16 would extend the term of an existing agreement by three years for the Division Circle Navigation Center and the mission.

According to their program monitoring results, they did not complete required service plans or meet objectives related to the guest surveys, but the provider has committed to completing service plans going forward and for improving guest satisfaction.

Annual cost of the program is eight million, funded by the general fund and props C, as shown in exhibit two on page 50 of our report.

And then item 17 is a new agreement for the MSC South Shelter.

According to program monitoring results, um, they kind of did not meet their target for occupancy.

It was 87% compared to a goal of 90%, but other than that, um, program results looked good.

Um annual funding for this program is 10 million, funded by the general fund as shown in exhibit two on page 56 of our reports.

We recommend approval of items 16 and 17.

Thank you.

I mean, I think that this work is just hard.

Like it's it's really hard work, and um, and I know that there's still always room for improvement, but I I also am grateful for the presentation and and the contract amendment today.

Um, before I call on supervisors souter, it just I I just also um appreciate sort of just it's thinking about the 18 months and then the three years, and I know that last week when you were here, there's an indication of sort of what we're gonna do next.

It's likely the summer to rethink about new leadership coming in and think about what would the um sort of um the five-year master RP would look like that as a process.

I do think that there's a huge benefit though, you can actually kind of see what is happening with DCYF, allowing it's a lot of work, but just having a five year RFP just really help you solidify it creates a lot of stability for your partner for our partners, um, creates a lot of momentum that you could build.

And I actually also think that it creates a uh accountability that it's a bit more um sustainable instead of sort of just do we have this for two years, do we have it for three?

But I think I I'm preaching to the choir, you already know that, um, but I just want to put my thoughts on the record.

Supervisors Howder.

Thank you.

Um for HSH, I had a question on item 16 and 19.

Um for 16 with St.

Vincent of Paul.

In terms of the outcome objectives, number two certainly is a is a glaring omission there with um no service plans created for guests.

Can you give some more context of why that is the case?

Yes, thank you so much for the question.

This is obviously an important part of the service package.

Excuse me, and noted in the program monitoring.

It's something we have you know work closely with St.

Vincent on.

They have a plan for reinstating that practice through staff training, and we will continue to monitor it, even be you know, between monitorings, it's a regular uh touch point, and we're confident that they can re-establish that practice consistently.

Okay, um, and then kind of in a similar vein on item number 19 um with uh THC uh 0% service plans in that case.

I think this is a problem, my understanding from this monitoring is that this is a data collection and maintenance issue more than an actual service provision issue.

So in our corrective action that will be issued as part of the program monitoring, we will be collecting that data from them and hoping we can up that we can fix this issue.

Um, and if it is more of a matter of not doing the service plans, then that will become the meat of the corrective action.

Are there representatives from either organization that can speak to that?

Hi, Tabitha with Tenor Loin Housing Clinic.

I definitely definitely about data collection and not completing service plans as all tenants move in, support services, completes an intake and assessment and starts to complete goals with the tenants in the building and works on putting together a care plan for them, and then as they meet with them regularly, they're they're constantly talking about the goals on those care plans.

Maybe not always as great as updating that and actually doing the documentation, despite constantly saying if it's not documented it didn't happen.

But I know always continuing to review those care plans with the tenants, um, as they're able to.

This is also about tenant engagement, right?

Not every tenant is going to continue to access services, but we will continue to outreach them to try to help meet those goals.

So the service plans were completed, they're just they haven't been uploaded is there isn't a place to upload them.

These are all done by paper currently.

Um and us, like the the data is based on us putting notes in a system and pulling those notes out and tracking the notes showing that the service plan is completed.

Thank you.

So sounds like some further conversation between the two of you that's needed.

Um, and then thank you.

And for 16, I think it's more so it sounds like a 19, it's it's happening, or we have word that it's happening, it's just not getting tracked correctly.

At 16, maybe a little bit more concerning.

I mean, I think what I'm getting at here is the expectation that I have, and I think most residents have, which is that there has to be uh, as we uh take in individuals into shelter and and care for them.

There has to also be um a plan and a path forward for them, and then having literally the plans, the personalized plans um and having them in the system seems seems quite important and critical.

Um so it's my expectation that both these will be corrected.

Thank you.

And I don't have additional questions or comments.

Let's go to public commons on these items.

Yes, right now opening public comment for these items 15 through 19.

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

Sorry, my legs are falling asleep.

Um, Lauren Hall.

I'm the co-CEO of DISH, which is item 15, I believe.

Um, I just wanted to thank you all for your consideration of this renewal and just give a quick history for those of you who weren't around.

Twenty years ago, we started, we really were formed to be sort of a um a way for the Department of Public Health to alleviate the number of unhoused folks that were clogging up the hospital and really high cost systems, and so I'm very proud of the work we've done over the last 20 years to support folks with really critical health needs in the least restrictive environment possible at a cost-effective note.

So I hope that you take that into consideration.

And aside from all of that, I just wanted to read uh quote from one of our residents who came in with a very uh challenging substance use disorder and now is still has that, but is doing great and has been sober for eight years.

So Dish gave me a chance to look at my life and decide what I want.

Having stable housing changed everything.

It gave me the space I need to see clearly to make different choices and to help others find their way.

Permanent housing doesn't just give you a roof, it gives you back your dignity and your chance to be human again.

Thank you.

And thank you, Lauren Hall.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, supervisors.

My name is Cody Keene, and I'm the public policy manager with Dish SF.

For 20 years, Dish has been on the front lines of ending homelessness in San Francisco by providing permanent supportive housing that helps stabilize people, keep them housed, and rebuild their lives.

This work is only possible when providers have the resources necessary to operate buildings responsibly and support tenants effectively.

I also want to acknowledge that uh the collaborative work happening between Dish as part of the supportive housing provider network and the mayor's office to address rent collection and vacancies across the system.

We are actively implementing solutions that both improve financial stability and keep people housed, including connecting tenants to benefits, expanding voluntary money management programs, and creating pathways that encourage rent payments while mitigating evictions.

These are thoughtful practical approaches that strengthen supportive housing without losing the sight of the mission, ending homelessness and helping people maintain long-term stability.

I respectfully urge your support for this amendment.

Thank you.

Thank you much, Cody King.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, uh supervisors.

My name is Denise Riggins.

I'm a property supervisor at Dish.

Um every day we walk into buildings where people who once lived outside now have a key, a safe place to sleep, and a chance to rebuild their lives.

This work is hard, but it's deeply human.

I know there's been concern about rent payments and PSH.

And while rent collection can be challenging, we continue to find compassionate and creative ways to support residents in maintaining housing stability.

Last week I sat down with a resident named Octavio.

He's been a resident since 2011.

We talked about getting caught up with his rent, and he told me his family had been struggling and he was helping support them, but that he wanted to work uh work on this because his housing mattered to him.

A few days later, Octavio passed away peacefully in his home.

And that is what this work is really about, making sure people have dignity, safety, and a home at the end of their lives.

And at DISH, we believe every human being deserves that.

Thank you.

And thank you, Denise Reggins.

Next speaker.

Hello, supervisors.

My name's John Gridley.

I'm the director of facilities in Calpo Improvements with Dish.

On paper, Dish is a property management company.

We're way more than that.

We care, we care about human lives, and we try to provide a home, as my colleagues have talked about.

There are times, yes, the data shows that maybe we've missed something on the monitoring reports, which are new to us.

We're still growing, we're still perfecting.

But at the end of the day, what we care about are the lives that are not sleeping outside.

The folks who are struggling, who don't have families in contact with them every day.

We have one example of a tenant who was struggling on the cusp of losing his housing because he felt that somebody was messing with the smoke detector and putting a camera in there.

So whenever he thought somebody had changed that, he could look at it and remember, okay, I'm okay.

That's that's the thing that I signed.

This is the work that we do.

We're creative, we think outside the box, and we provide homes for families.

Thank you much, John Gridley.

Next speaker.

Good afternoon, board.

I have the privilege of uh leading a dynamic team that's pivoting in um homelessness every day.

Uh today I'm here on behalf of MSE South and Division Circle Navigation.

Uh, wanted to just clarify the guest survey satisfaction that we're actively working to digitalize the um response rate, in addition to having our case managers touch every guest five days five times a day to make sure that we're um on board.

Thank you.

And thank you much for addressing this committee.

Seeing no other speakers, madam chairman completes our queue.

Seeing no more public commons, public comment is now close.

Um colleagues, I would like to move these items to full board, 50 items 15 through 19 to full board with recommendation uh and a roll call, please.

And on the motion to forward the resolutions and item 15 through 19 to the full board with the recommendation, Vice Chair Dorsey.

Dorsey, I member Sauter.

Soder, I chair Chan.

Aye.

Chan, I we have three eyes.

The motion passes.

And with that, Mr.

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

That concludes our business.

The meetings adjourned,