Morning.

Uh this meeting will come to order.

Welcome to July 16th, 2026 regular meeting of the government audit and oversight committee of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors.

I'm Supervisor Stephen Sherrill, Chair of the Committee joined by Vice Chair Balal Mahmood, Supervisor Fielder, and today Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you for joining us.

Our committee clerk today is Monique Creighton.

And thanks to SUS Inus of SFGov TV for staffing this meeting.

Madam Clerk, do you have any announcements?

Yes, public comment will be taken on each item on this agenda.

When your item of interest comes up in public comment is called, please line up to speak on your right.

Alternatively, you may submit public comment in writing in either of the following ways.

Email them to me, the government audit and oversight committee clerk at M-O-N-I-Q-UE.

C-R-A-Y-T-O-N at SFGOV dot or G.

If you submit public comment via email 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 or Office in City Hall.

Number one, Dr.

Carlton B.

Goodlit Place, Room 244, San Francisco, California 94102.

If you have documents you would like to be included as part of the file, please submit them to me before the end of the meeting.

Please make sure to silence all cell phones and electronic devices to prevent any interruptions to today's proceedings.

Finally, items acted upon today are expected to appear on the Board of Supervisors Agenda of July 28th, 2026, unless otherwise stated.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Can you please call items one and two together?

Yes, item one is a resolution of intention to issue bonds as a result of an annexation of property to the city and county of San Francisco infrastructure and revitalization financing district number one.

Treasure Island is as new project areas in determining other matters in connection therewith as dear defined herein.

And number two, item number two is a resolution approving annexation supplement to the amended and restated infrastructure financing plan for city and county of San Francisco, infrastructure and revitalization financing district number one, Treasure Island, and determining other matters in connection therewith as defined herein.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um we're joined today by Jamie Kruben, the COO for the Treasure Island Development Authority.

Jamie, thank you for being here and the floor is yours.

Thank you.

Good morning, GAO Committee members, Chair Sherrill, Vice Chair Mahmood, Supervisor Sauter, and Supervisor Fielder.

My name is Jamie Kerubin.

I'm the Chief Operating Officer with the Treasure Island Development Authority, or TIDA.

Today I will be presenting on items one and two together.

The first being a resolution of intention to issue bonds as a result of an annexation of property to the Treasure Island Infrastructure and Revitalization Financing District, or what we refer to as the IRFD.

And the second being a resolution approving annexation supplement to the amended and restated infrastructure financing plan for the Treasure Island IRFD.

Slide three is a slide that this committee has seen before, but as a refresher on the Treasury Island IRFD, the original disposition and development agreement, or DDA, approved in 2011, contemplated the formation of the IRFD, which was then later formed by the Board of Supervisors in 2017.

The IRFD allows the city to capture and dedicate a portion of new property taxes generated by the properties on Treasure Island as a result of the development.

The city then issues tax increment or IRFD bonds against those property tax revenues to finance both the public infrastructure supporting the project as well as affordable housing located on Treasure Island and Yerbiwena Island.

The IRFD as formed always contemplated eventually adding new properties into the district boundaries as a develop as the development occurs in order to capture new property tax growth in their initial stages of development, which is the subject of this legislation today.

Due to constraints with the IRFD state law, the IRFD was originally formed only including properties within stage one of the development boundary, and that included development parcels located on Yerba Boana Island and the waterfront-facing parcels on Treasure Island.

The subject of this legislation is to continue the process to add the stage two properties indicated in the red box on slide four into the legal boundaries of the IRFD.

Slide five shows a closer view of these properties defined as project areas F, G, H, and I, which are grouped based on the timing in which these parcels are likely to be developed.

California IRFD state law dictates a process to add properties into an IRFD, which requires a multi-step legislative process of the Board of Supervisors, acting as the city's governing body of the IRFD.

In June, the board previously approved a resolution of intention to add property into the IRFD and a resolution to authorize a preparation of an update to the infrastructure financing plan.

To continue the legal process in accordance with state law, the next step requires the board adopt the two resolutions proposed before you today.

Future Board of Supervisors actions will consist of the review and approval of an election by property owners electing to join the IRFD, an ordinance adopting the annexation supplement and confirming the annexation of property into the IRFD, and an approval of the increased principal amount of bonds.

This subset of required legislation has already been introduced at the Board of Supervisors on June 30th and is scheduled to be heard at the Committee of the Whole public hearing scheduled on September 15th, 2026.

The overall legislative process related to this IRFD annexation will continue, will conclude in mid-October.

The resolution of intention to issue bonds authorizes the city to issue a maximum principal amount of $520 million for the annexation territory, specifically across the proposed project areas F through I.

As a reminder, this $520 million is in addition to the existing $780 million maximum bond authorization for the existing project areas, which was approved in 2017 as part of the initial district formation.

This brings the total maximum aggregate principal amount for the IRFD to 1.3 billion.

The $520 million maximum bond authorization is calculated based on the projected net available tax increment, which is set forth in the annexation supplement, generated only from the property within the proposed annexation territory.

The bonds will be repaid from property tax revenues allocated to the IRFD, including tax revenues from the initial project areas as well as the proposed project areas F through I.

It is estimated that the proposed project aerials would generate 1.7 billion dollars in property tax revenues to pay principal and interest on the bonds.

As a reminder to this committee, TIDA and the controller's office are required to seek a board of supervisors approval for each bond issuance against this maximum bonding capacity.

Therefore, although this resolution authorizes a maximum cap, the board will still have the authority to approve each subsequent issuance against this maximum.

The second resolution approves an annexation supplement to the infrastructure financing plan, or the IFP.

The original IFP was approved as part of the district formation in 2017, which designates TIDA to prepare an appendix or a supplement to the IFP for the annexation territory.

A summary of the components of this of the annexation supplement are provided on slide eight, of which includes a map and legal description of the annexation territory, a summary of projected tax increment committed to the annexation territory, an analysis of the cost to the city of providing facilities and services in the annexation territory, an analysis of the projected fiscal impact of the tax revenues allocation from the annexation territory and the associated development.

The fiscal impact analysis report was drafted by the city's fiscal consultant, Kaiser Marson Associates, and projects that there will be a cumulative $33 million in positive net fiscal impact to the city's general fund over time, as a result of this annexation and the proposed development.

Lastly, TIDA in consultation with the controller's office has also confirmed that this annexation is in compliance with the city's IFD policy regarding the limit of IFD debt across all IFDs, such that the total annual debt service payments do not exceed 5% of the city's annual property tax revenue.

And with that, I will conclude my presentation.

I and staff from the controller's office of public finance would be happy to answer any questions you have.

Thank you very much.

Um colleagues, any questions?

No, seeing no colleagues on the roster.

Uh Madam Clerk, let's open this for public comment.

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on items one and two should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Thank you.

Public comments now closed.

Colleagues, I'd like to move to send these two items, items one and two to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Madam Clerk, can you call the roll?

Yes, and on the motion to forward items one and two to the full board with positive recommendation.

Member Fielder, member Fielder, I, Vice Chair Mahmood, Victor Mahmood I.

Chair Sherrill.

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I I have three ayes.

Thank you.

Motion passes.

Can you please call item number three?

Yes, item number three is an ordinance amending the labor and employment code to revise the criteria for an employee in the city to qualify for parental leave benefits under the paid parental leave ordinance by reducing from 180 days to 90 days the minimum number of days that an employee must work before they are eligible to receive parental leave benefits from their employer.

Noting this item may be referred to the full board as a committee report at the July 21st, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thank you.

Today we're joined by Supervisor Danny Sauter on this item.

Supervisor Sauter, first and foremost, thank you for introducing this.

Thank you for driving this forward.

I know this is the first part of a larger swath of initiatives, ordinances, moves to make it easier for families to be here in San Francisco.

We are the third oldest city in the fastest aging city in America, and a big driving factor in that is we have the fewest number of kids per capita.

And the driving factor behind that is it's just too damn hard to raise a family here from a cost point of view.

This is a great step in the right direction.

This is in many ways probably overdue, but I just want to give you my personal thanks for introducing this being here, and I'd like to turn the floor over to you.

Thank you, uh Chair Sherrill, and uh thank you, committee members, for letting me join you this morning to hear this.

Uh I want to begin by thanking uh you, Supervisor Cheryl and Supervisor Muttmood, for your co-sponsorship, but also for uh joining us this morning.

We were joined uh at a rally this morning by caregivers, uh parents, child care providers, many of our department leaders and city leaders uh to uh show support for this ordinance.

Um, a decade ago, San Francisco became the first major city to provide fully paid parental leave for new parents, uh which was absolutely groundbreaking and has been a massive benefit.

Um today we are uh recognizing that we can go a little bit further and that we can expand to ensure that we keep being a leader in supporting families uh in our city.

I want to appreciate the co-sponsors of this legislation, Supervisor uh Melgar, Walton, Cheryl, Chen, and Matmood, uh, and also the amazing partners uh at the city departments that have pushed this forward and have offered um all of their experience working on this larger issue for many, many years.

Our Department on the Status of Women, DCYF, uh the mayor's office, particularly Kunal Modi, who joined us this morning, and the Department of Early Childhood, who is uh at this moment working to expand access to child care.

Uh this ordinance is is pretty simple in terms of the uh technical piece of it.

It um reduces the amount of time that you have to wait once you start a new job to be eligible for this benefit.

Right now you're eligible for paid sick leave at 90 days, but you're not eligible for paid uh parental leave until 180 days.

And we're looking to put those on par with one another, uh making this benefit eligible at 90 days.

That's going to simply uh result in more people being eligible for this benefit, and there being less of a constraint between people having to choose between family and careers.

Um, this is um this is something that um we are working on within a larger package as Chair Sherrill referenced, and you know, think this is a really big step forward today.

Um before we hear from public comment and hear from the my committee members, um, I want to also highlight uh feedback that we received.

I think really productive feedback from the Office of Racial Equity with a suggestion that we ask departments and particularly the Office of Labor Standards Enforcement to really do a thorough job of updating um the uh ordinance and advisory to employers.

Um we're still seeing lower rates of participation for black, indigenous, and Pacific Islander communities for paid parental leave.

And we think this will be part of um shifting that uptick or uptake rather.

Um and then today I'll also be asking that uh the committee considers and moves forward an amendment, and that amendment would allow for businesses with fewer than a hundred employees a little bit more time to comply with this being January 1st, 2028, to comply if you are an employer under 100 employees.

We've had really productive conversations uh with the business community here, uh particularly the Chamber of Commerce and the um the Golden Gate Restaurant Association, and they support the vision of this, but they've had good helpful feedback on just how we uh work out the operations of this and particularly recognizing that smaller employees will just need a little bit more of a heads up to come into compliance, and that's what the amendment does.

Um again, committee members, um thank you uh for hearing this, and I hope it earns your support.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter.

Uh Vice Chair Machmood.

Uh thank you, Chair Sheryl, and thank you, Supervisor Sauter, for bringing this item forward.

Um as we all know, the affordability crisis in our community is multifaceted.

It is a housing shortage that is driving up rent prices.

Um it is an AI boom that is causing a shortage to be oversaturated as well.

It are tariffs that are making even a smartphone more expensive.

The affordability crisis that reaches into every part of family life, from child care costs to groceries to health care to the ability to take time to bond with a new child without worrying about losing income.

In District 5, I know this is a daily decision that many of my constituents face.

Families from the hate to the tenderloin shouldn't have to choose between paying their rent or buying groceries or taking time off to work to take care of their families.

They also shouldn't have to worry about what starting or stopping a job six months ahead of having a baby means for their ability to take time with their newborn.

That's why it's so important that we continue looking for practical ways to remove unnecessary barriers for working families.

This legislation is a straightforward common sense improvement that makes our laws work better for the people they're meant to serve.

So I'm sure Supervisor Sauter and his wife Chelsea can attest to with the cutest baby that is possible.

I've seen all year.

Um the first few weeks and months of after welcoming a child are some of the most important in a family's life.

This legislation recognizes that families shouldn't have to schedule life's biggest moments around bureaucratic timelines based on when they started work.

I'm proud to co-sponsor this legislation and deeply appreciate Supervisor Sauter for leading the way and making it a little easier for families to grow and stay in San Francisco.

I ask for your vote to send this to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Uh, and also so that I can maybe use this myself in the future.

Uh there's so many comments I want to make about that.

No.

Um great.

Um Madam Clerk, can we call public comment on this item?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on item three should line up along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Chair, we have no speakers.

Hang on, hang on, hang on.

Oh, we got speakers.

Take your time.

Take your time.

I see you.

Okay.

Good morning, Board of Visor.

My name is Quinn, and I'm a parent leader with the with parent voices and the family services alliance.

I'm also a registered nurse.

When I had my daughter, I had to step away from my career because I needed more time to recover from child and to bond with her.

And I I wasn't even aware that I was qualified for pay parental leave.

Nobody told me about it.

I support reducing the waiting period to qualify for pay parental leave from six months to three months.

This change would allow parents to access leave sooner, giving them the time they need to recover, bond with a new baby, and care for the family well-being without facing immediate financial hardship.

I also hope that in addition to this change, I hope the city continue to do outreach about the assistant of the support.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Hey, good morning, supervisors.

Um thank you, Supervisor Sauter and all the sponsors of this legislation.

My name's Maria Lustorian.

I'm the organizer of Parent Voice San Francisco, and this is another parent leader, Hong.

Um my mom had 11 of us.

Can you imagine that?

And she had two months paid family leave for every one of us that was in the Philippines, considered a third world country.

And I was born a long time ago, more than 50 years ago.

That's all I'm gonna say.

And it took us a long time here in the US of the richest country in the world to catch up with that.

And that's a crying shame.

When I had my son, I was an intern at the Rainforest Action Network.

When I had my daughter, I was on the job training at the Hamilton Family Center.

For both births, I was not eligible for paid family leave.

So we strongly support making access to paid family leave earlier for employees in the city.

This is another trailblazing legislation that sets a good example for the rest of California and the country to follow.

Thank you.

Hi, thank you.

Uh good morning.

My name is Hong Wing.

I'm the parent for a leader, and uh, you know, I have uh um chow waste autism.

And you know, without the support, you know, it's I can, you know, have uh can stay.

You know, I got uh abuse with my ex-husband, and that's why I need you know, time for to stay home more time with my child.

Yeah.

Um thank you for your tax.

Thank you.

Next speaker, please.

Uh thank you, supervisor, so much for another legislation that helps children, youth, and families thrive in the city.

My name is Virginia Taylor.

I work for Safe and Sound, a child abuse and neglect prevention agency, and support the Family Service Alliance, which is 45 family support organizations, and we work with more than 50,000 children and families across the city every year.

When babies are zero to one, families keep telling us the same thing.

They need time with their children.

This week, a mom came to our office asking for diapers and help with housing, but really what she wanted was more time with her newborn before she had to go back to her restaurant job.

She wasn't ready to leave her baby, and the current rules make that almost impossible.

This change you're considering today helps families like her actually use the leave that they're promised.

And for us, paid leave isn't just a workplace benefit, it's prevention.

It keeps families from tipping into crisis, and it's one other concrete way to make sure that San Francisco is a place where families can stay grow, grow, and thrive.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker, please.

Morning, supervisors.

Uh Alex Megowski with um Children's Council of San Francisco, Childcare Resource and Referral Agency in the city.

Um I'd like to speak in support of the ordinance amending eligibility for paid family leave.

Thank you, Supervisor Sauter for introducing this legislation.

Thank you to all the co-sponsors as well.

Uh, Supervisor Sauter, as you mentioned, 10 years ago, San Francisco led setting a national example, becoming the first city in the United States to provide fully paid parental leave when the board passed the paid parental leave ordinance.

This critical benefit allows families to build strong bonds and reduce stress during critical periods of development.

Additionally, studies show that this benefit leads to higher employee morale and increases women's labor market participation in the longer term as well.

Now we have the chance to lead yet again and ensure that this important benefit is extended to even more families in our city.

I hope that you'll support this ordinance not just as a benefit for employees, but as a commitment to the well-being of the city's children, families, and its future.

And we look forward to continuing to partner with you all in that commitment.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Public comment is now closed.

Um, let's take the amendments that uh Supervisor Sauter described and circulated, if that's okay, colleagues.

Um I'd like to move to amend the ordinances described by Supervisor Sauter.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, and on the motion to accept the amendments as described by Supervisor Sauter.

Member Fielder, member Fielder, aye.

Vice Mahmood, Victor Mahmood, aye.

Chair Cheryl?

Aye.

Chair Cheryl, aye.

I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Uh now I'm going to move to send this item to the full board with a positive recommendation as a committee report.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll?

Yes, and on the motion to send this item to the Board of Supervisors as a committee report as amended as a committee report.

Thank you.

Member Fielder, member Fielder, aye.

Victor Mahmood.

Fleisch removed aye.

Chair Sheryl.

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Congratulations, Supervisor Sauter.

Thank you for joining us today.

And Madam Clerk, could you please call items four, five, and six together?

Yes, items four through six are ordinance submitting the following.

Items number four and five amends the campaign and governmental conduct code for item four to require campaign consultants to provide information necessary for their clients to fully disclose campaign spending and repeal the requirement that such consultants register with the ethics commission, repeal the requirement that members of the city boards and commissions follow notice with the ethics commission after recusing from participate participation in a matter based on a financial conflict of interest and require developers of certain large projects to provide information on non nonprofit donations for lobbyist activities so that recipients can accurately register and report such activities and repeal the requirement that developers register with the ethics commission for item number five.

It modifies the public financing program for candidates for the mayor and the board of supervisors by replacing the current process of continuous adjustments of init individual expenditure ceilings to a one and done approach in which the ceiling is removed for all candidates within the race upon once certain spending reaches a specified amount and adjusting reporting requirements, raise a campaign control contribution limit for 500 to 1,000, and authorize the ethics commission to adjust their the contribution limit going forward for changes in the consumer price index and allow the ethics commission to designate the website to be used in campaign advertising advertisement disclaimers and for item six amends the amendest strative code to eliminate statement of intention to disclosure and reporting requirements for candidates seeking a relation to the retirement board, health service board, and retiree health care trust fund board, eliminate third-party disclosure requirements for persons or entities making independent expenditures to support or oppose such candidates and delete corresponding training, audit, and enforcement provisions.

Thank you.

Today we're joined by Board President Mandelman.

Thank you for being here with us today.

President Mandelman, thank you for introducing these items and uh take it away.

Thank you, Chair Sherrill, and thank you, colleagues, for making a little time on a Thursday morning to talk about ethics.

Um we have before us three measures that you know I've spent a lot of time with and my staff have spent a lot of time with over the last months.

Um I think they make eminent good sense.

Uh and we're gonna hear today from ethics staff about why ethics staff think they make eminent good sense.

Um there is, however, opposition from uh some ethics advocates to these measures, and based on that opposition, I think um I do not believe that uh any of these measures right now has the votes to pass at the full board, it needs two-thirds.

So I am uh I want to have the conversation.

A lot of people on ethics staff have done work on this.

The ethics commission itself passed each of these three measures.

I think, although we'll hear from staff themselves about why they think these are important.

My understanding is that from the perspective of ethics, we have given them a lot to do.

Um probably much more than they actually have the capacity to do.

And so they are looking to the policymakers on the ethics commission and the board of supervisors to help them sort through what is more important and what is less important.

They have identified some things that take time from them and time from the uh entities, campaigns, individuals that interact with them that they think are relatively low value in terms of their commitment or in terms of what they contribute to public understanding and to the avoidance of corruption.

They believe they have other things to do on their to-do list that would advance those goals more effectively, but that they are kept from doing those things because of the very time-intensive activities that they have to engage in related to these measures.

And they're asking for some relief, friends.

Um I want to give them the opportunity to make the case for each of each of these measures.

They deal with three they're in three different buckets, three different pieces of legislation.

Two of them are relatively simple in my mind.

One of them is quite complicated.

One of the simple ones uh deals with the disclosure requirements currently applicable to campaign consultants, recusal notifications for us and and uh and people who are on boards when they have to recuse themselves and what in addition to recusing themselves from the vote they may have to do.

Um then the uh the major developer disclosures, which I will allow staff to explain.

I'm not gonna try to get into that, although I at points have understood it and believe that they are correct.

Um the third item, item number six on the agenda is also relatively straightforward.

Uh, it relates to elections to the disclose the the filings that are required for people seeking election to the retirement board, the health service board, the retiree health care trust fund board.

As I understand these are almost never offices, maybe never, but certainly almost never offices that involve raising money, and yet people who are seeking those offices have to fill out campaign finance disclosures and ethics staff is saying, and their commission that oversees them is saying we can let go of this one.

All right, those are the two that are relatively simple.

I would love it for us to be able to do them.

I don't think we can you I'm not asking you all to do them today.

They're gonna I hope you continue to call the chair.

Um item five is the complicated one.

Um, and I've wrestled with parts of it myself quite a bit.

Um parts of it I think are correct, although I I know there are people who do not.

I think raising the uh individual giving limit from what it has been at least since the 90s and possibly since the 70s, from 500 to 1,000, makes sense.

Um I think it makes sense for candidates to be able to spend less time fundraising uh and also to be able to raise the funds into their campaign to avoid relying so much on the unlimited, largely unregulated outside spending that comes in not at 500,000 or 1,000, but at 25, 50 and hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars, what for which there is no limit.

Um I don't think going from 500 to 1,000 uh breeds corruption.

I think it is makes life somewhat easier on candidates and the campaigns and makes sense given uh inflation.

I think inflation adjusters make sense.

Um that's a relatively straightforward change, which people can disagree on.

There's also a change uh to increase the match, the public financing match to address concerns um about uh about access for candidates who may not have as well-heeled donors.

And the hardest piece of this, which I don't want to go too far down the path of explaining because I think staff is in a much better position to deal with, is the cap.

Um, as I understand it, and for my own recollection of camp my own days running for supervisor, it's a very complicated um of reporting.

Everybody who's running needs to file many, many times as they hit various limits.

Uh and the lifting of caps, which happens based on spending happening in these campaigns, also happens in these increments of $10,000.

It is incredibly time intensive for the campaigns themselves and for the ethics staff to lift these campaigns, these limits in these $10,000 increments and keep track of how much is being spent in the different um by the different players in a campaign, both the candidates themselves and the outside players who are coming in with their floods of money.

At the end of the day, I believe what ethics staff have seen, what the ethics commission has seen, is that these caps are mostly not functioning as an actual limit on campaign spending, that almost invariably they come off.

And so we have our ethics staff, our enforcement agency spending a ton of time managing a cap that actually does not have practical significance in limiting spending in campaigns.

So they have they proposed in their legislation that that cap kind of come off for everybody at the same time, once it's been blown, because ultimately they believe that's what's going to happen.

I struggled with that.

I struggled with that because I recognize that there will be circumstances where the entities, the well-funded entities that are breaking the cap are the same, are supporting the best funded candidates in the races.

And that does not seem right to me.

And so the ask that I made to ethics staff was to come up with a modification that would limit that likelihood.

That is the amendment that I've circulated that you have in your hands, and which um we can have staff describe a little bit more to you.

Bless you.

Um those are the three measures.

I'd like for the committee to make if you agree with me that that amendment makes sense.

I'd like you to mend uh file five to have that amended language in it.

But again, recognizing none of these uh would probably pass out of the full board right now.

I don't want them to die.

I'd I hope colleagues will be willing to keep them alive in this committee, continuing them to the call of the chair.

Maybe there will be an opportunity sometime while I'm still around to pass one or more of them.

If not, maybe somebody else will want to keep the dream alive and continue it into next year.

Um but that's kind of what I got.

I have thank yous.

I do want to very much thank um ethics commission staff in particular.

Um I want to thank uh Patrick Ford, the director, Michael Canning, Zach D'Amico, um, and then also I believe we have Trisha Lim here.

Thank you.

Uh policy research specialist Lim.

Um and then I want to thank uh our city attorney's office and particularly Michael Girchau, and then in my office, I want to thank Grace Wong uh for her work.

Um with that, I think uh oh, looks like Supervisor Mahmoud might want to speak, but after Supervisor Mahmoud will hear from ethics staff.

Uh great, thank you, President Mandelman.

Appreciate you being here today.

Zach D'Amico from the Ethics Commission is here who's gonna provide a presentation.

And then I know my colleagues have uh questions for you all.

Um thank you, as do I.

Uh thank you for being here today.

Um, and uh take it away.

Thank you, President Mendelman.

I also want to echo the thanks you offered to ethics staff, to Grace, your staff.

Um, also wanna thank all the groups who've engaged on this and the supervisors' offices and their staff.

Um my name is Zachary D'Amico, I'm the deputy director at the Ethics Commission here.

I'm gonna give an overview of the three ordinances that deal with ethics programs and policies.

Uh, and both Trisha and I are available for questions after.

So uh just a very brief refresher.

The ordinances, as President Mandelman noted, they emerged from our staff's evaluation of our existing programs.

We're very lucky that that the city is a leader on ethics and campaign finance rules, means we try new, unique approaches here.

That also requires us to do the very unglamorous work of going back and making sure that these programs are effective and worth the cost and having the intended impact.

Uh so that's what a lot of what you're gonna see here today is a result of.

So uh I'm going to talk about uh three ordinances here.

Uh, I'm not gonna introduce them since President Mandelman already briefly touched on the summaries.

I do wanna note the first and third ordinances here.

They're focused on sort of the, as President Mandelman put it, non-controversial or at least simple items, um, streamlining our programs.

This is a direct response to budget cuts that have pretty severely limited the commission's ability to carry out all of its programs.

This is not where we want to be as a commission, but we also don't feel right about just sticking our heads in the sand.

Uh we we have to work to identify the programs that don't provide as much value in exchange for the toll on staff and resources.

If we don't scale back these programs, we won't be able to serve the regulated community and the public on our core programs because we'll be spread too thin.

So, with that said, I want to move on to the first ordinance here.

So this would scale back on three programs.

First, we have our campaign consultant program.

So this program requires consultants to register and file quarterly reports.

This ordinance would discontinue those requirements.

The program was established in 1997.

This was before all campaign finance filings were available electronically.

Today, this program is almost entirely redundant as the same information is available in other disclosures.

And crucially, because of the recent updates and sophistication to our dashboards and our databases, you can you can go on, you can search a consultant's name, and you can find all of the campaigns that paid them, what they paid them for, and all of the information that you're looking for.

So this additional program provides very little value add in exchange for the burden on the city, and also the burden on consultants, which does tend to disproportionately fall on young and new campaign staffers and consultants.

The threshold is a thousand dollars, it's very low, and the definition is vague and very broad.

Uh so we think it's appropriate to scale back on this program given that the information is already out there.

Next, we have our recusal program.

So, as you all obviously know, members of city boards and commissions are required to recuse themselves for matters when they have a financial conflict of interest.

Of course, we do not want to change that.

But members of certain boards and commissions also have to file a supplemental recusal notification with the commission.

We want to eliminate this requirement, both because it's redundant and because it fails to advance the goals of the program.

So the recusal program is designed to encourage government officials to recuse and avoid conflicts, corruption or the appearance of corruption.

Layering additional requirements onto volunteer commissioners fails to incentivize recusal and could even discourage it at times.

There is also not that much accountability value to this information.

If I want to look into whether someone has failed to recuse and has a conflict of interest, I would check their Form 700 to see what their financial interests are, and then I would have to look at the meetings they've had to see if they ever failed to recuse.

These supplemental disclosures only tell me every time that they did the right thing and successfully recused.

They don't direct me to potential inappropriate activity.

So for those reasons, we don't think it provides enough value in our sort of budget strapped world right now.

The final piece of this first ordinance is the major developer program.

So this requires developers to disclose certain donations to nonprofit organizations that have contacted city officers regarding the developers' major projects.

I should note this is separate and apart from requirements to report as a lobbyist if the developer is paying the nonprofit specifically for their advocacy.

This more has to do with general developer donations to nonprofits for grants and other programmatic support.

So we're proposing to eliminate these requirements and instead ensure that developers are providing the required information to nonprofits so that they can register as lobbyists when appropriate.

I think the reasoning here is twofold.

Most importantly, all of this reporting is done post hoc.

So the government decision maker has already met with the nonprofit and made their decision, and then the reporting is done.

So this is not providing transparency to decision makers before they make their decision.

Second, the disclosures only provide transparency into these sort of lawful payments.

The law doesn't make the payments unlawful in any way.

So they're not giving information that potentially leads to accountability and instances of wrongdoing.

So for those reasons, we want to scale back the requirements of the program.

So that is the first ordinance here, three programs that we're hoping to scale back to really help us with our given our budget cuts.

I'm gonna move on to the second ordinance now.

As President Mendelman noted, this is one of the more complicated ones.

So I'm gonna spend a little bit more time on it.

Um this has been subject to a good uh a good deal of back and forth.

I want to thank especially the stakeholders who have engaged with us.

It has been a long but I think productive process.

We are still not in the exact same place, but I think what has emerged is it is a very effective piece of legislation.

So the ordinance would, in short, raise the contribution limit, increase public financing program matching funds rate, and change how the expenditure ceiling operates.

So I'm gonna go through each of these changes, and then I'm gonna finish with an example of why these changes are they sort of knit together and are essential to supporting viable publicly financed campaigns.

So first we have the contribution limit.

I want to acknowledge the importance of these limits and helping prevent reliance on wealthy donors, but on the flip side, stagnant or overly strict contribution limits can make it harder for campaigns to compete with outside spending, outside spending that is not subject to contribution limits.

The $500 limit was set over 25 years ago before Citizens United, before McCutcheon, before the Supreme Court cases that have led to an explosion of outside money into campaigns.

That was a very different world that we lived in.

This ordinance would adjust it retroactively for inflation for from 500 to 1,000 and codify a mechanism for ongoing inflation adjustments just so we don't run into this issue again.

It would also bring it more in line with other major cities in California.

Moving to the changes to the public financing program.

So as a reminder, the program was established in 2000 by ballot measure.

Its primary purpose is to help candidates with a demonstrated level of community support run viable campaigns.

The program matches eligible contributions at a six to one ratio, and to participate, candidates have to agree to adhere to an expenditure ceiling.

The city has a unique process by which these ceilings are incrementally adjusted on an ongoing basis throughout the campaign.

Most of the similar programs across the country actually have no ceiling at all, and the ones that do not have the sort of ongoing adjustment process like San Francisco does.

So I want to talk a bit about some of the issues we've seen emerge with this approach.

And at the end of the election, they limited the spending of a single candidate.

Next, obviously they are extremely volatile, where small amounts of spending lead to basically a cascading set of adjustments and constant filing on a 24-hour basis.

And finally, they impose a pretty large burden on candidates and on staff.

So again, in 2024, candidates had to file over 250 threshold statements.

These are due within 24 hours of crossing a given threshold.

They take time and resources better spent engaging with voters, and they hit first-time candidates particularly hard, folks who don't really know how the program works.

Moving on, I want to talk about how the ordinance would change the program.

So first, and simply, program would now match contributions at a higher rate eight to one.

Next, more complicated, the program would change how the expenditure ceilings operate.

So instead of these sort of ongoing indefinite adjustments, there would be a single ceiling.

That ceiling would apply to each candidate as an individual, and then it would be lifted on a per candidate basis once a single threshold is met.

So there are two ways that this threshold can be met.

Let's say I am running for the board, and if there are independent expenditures opposing me or supporting my opponent, and they exceed 50% of my ceiling, then my ceiling is lifted.

My opponent's ceiling isn't lifted, but my ceiling is lifted.

Alternatively, if someone is running against me and they're not participating in public financing, and they raise or spend 75% of my ceiling, my ceiling is lifted.

The reasons for this change, I think are threefold, and I'll go through them.

So first, they it does drastically simplify the process.

It reduces a huge administrative burden on candidates on the city, it eliminates the need for these ongoing 24-hour threshold reports.

It replaces them with a single threshold that remains in place until it's no longer effective.

Second, on the front end, this actually makes expenditure ceilings more effective.

This is because for low and moderate amounts of spending, the ceiling isn't constantly being increased throughout the campaign.

Instead, it stays in place so long as there is low or moderate amounts of spending.

And we see through an analysis of historical data what would have happened in the last 15 races with publicly financed candidates.

Six, nobody's ceiling would be lifted.

Six, some but not all ceilings would be lifted, and three, they would all be lifted.

I think another useful data point is to compare to the numbers I offered for the 2024 election.

27 candidates, the way it actually played out, the ceilings limited one candidate at the end of the campaign.

If this system had been in place, the ceilings would have remained in place on 13, or excuse me, on 10 candidates.

Ceilings would have been lifted on the remainder of the candidates, and for the 13 other board candidates, for 12 of them, the ceiling would have been lifted in October.

So really at the end of the election.

And then for the other one, it would have been the last week of September.

So again, we think this is essential.

You'll go back, Tricia.

Again, we think this is essential for making the ceilings more effective on the front end.

The third reason for this change is that on the back end, once those ceilings stop being affected, they are cleanly lifted and they really allow candidates to run a more viable campaign.

Once your opponent is spending or is receiving independent expenditures up to 50% of your ceiling, you don't want to be filing 24-hour threshold reports to constantly bump your ceiling up.

At that point, the ceiling is just not effective.

It's preventing you from running a viable campaign in the face of outside spending against you.

So the ceiling is lifted and allows you to run a viable campaign.

So moving on, um, I want to give this sort of like philosophy behind how these three work together.

They're designed to be part of the same ordinance.

I know they may seem like they're different, but they they really do work together to increase the viability of running a publicly financed campaign or running a campaign without a ton of outside spending.

So again, let's say I'm a candidate running for the board of supervisors.

My opponent just received 250,000 in independent spending supporting them.

I want to talk about how these changes work together to make it more possible to run a viable campaign.

So in the past, I could try to compete with that money by raising up to $500.

I could receive a six to one match from eligible contributions, and then I would file a series of 24-hour threshold statements to have my ceiling incrementally adjusted as I'm running my campaign.

In under this new ordinance, this changes in three ways.

First, I can now raise up to a thousand dollars from individuals.

That's going to help me better compete with outside spending.

Second, those c a lot of those contributions will now be matched at an eight to one rate.

Outside spending can often come in very large chunks, so the increased match rate allows me to get access to public financing dollars faster so that I can run a viable campaign.

And then third, my expenditure ceiling is lifted as a direct result of the 250,000 dollars in spending.

That is over 50% of my ceiling, so the ceiling is just lifted.

I don't have to go through the sort of almost charade of these 24-hour ongoing reports when the ceiling is just not going to limit me anyway.

I get to just remove it because it's not effective.

So that's a bit sort of about how these three things work together to help publicly financed campaigns be viable.

The last point on this ordinance, as Supervisor Manelman noted, uh, we received a lot of feedback, both from um excuse me, President Mandelman and uh stakeholders.

So I want to thank them for that process.

This slide emphasizes some of the changes that we made in direct response to this feedback.

These are changes that uh we think the legislation has we think has made the legislation stronger.

Um I won't necessarily go through each one.

I think that first one is the key one that President Mandelman noted.

Uh the original version of this legislation would have allowed, it would have lifted the ceiling for an entire race all at once.

So if I am spending 250,000 to support Trisha in her campaign against President Mandelman, it would lift the ceiling for both of them.

As President Mandelman and some of the groups noted, that creates a perverse incentive.

And so instead, if I am spending that money to support Trisha, only President Mandelman's ceiling will be lifted, not hers.

That wraps up the second ordinance.

I'll briefly briefly touch on the third ordinance and then wrap up.

So this would so this concerns the city's three benefit related boards and the campaign finance requirements on candidates for those positions.

We're proposing to eliminate them.

In the eight years of their existence, only a single candidate has raised a total of $78.60.

These elections are not open to the public.

And the requirements, which not only include filing regular disclosures, but also include opening a separate bank account, they just impose uh too heavy of a burden for very, very little value.

So with that, I just want to thank you all again.

There's a little bit of a longer presentation.

I appreciate you staying with me for it.

Uh and Trisha and I are here to answer questions.

Great.

Thank you, Zach.

Uh appreciate that uh detailed presentation.

Um I uh know my colleagues have questions.

Um Vice Chair Machwood, uh please go ahead.

Um thank you for the presentation and the rigorous thought to how to reform these processes to be um adapting to the times.

Um one more just one broad question, which is um you indicated that a couple times that part of the necessity for these is insufficient staff time to address um some of these campaign components.

In an alternative world if you had the resources and the sufficient staff time that there's that is a lever that the city can pull um or raise, um would you still be making the same recommendations?

Um I'm curious like of which of these recommendations uh if you had full staffing to meet them, are still unnecessary from your standpoint, or which ones do you think are still necessary, but you just can't do them right now because of staffing.

Sure.

Um it's a good question.

I think the answer is nuanced.

It is that if these were up for a vote, we would recommend supporting them in any scenario.

We would not be putting in the effort to get them passed if we weren't in the same sort of budget crunch.

So we support them no matter what because they also impose burden on the people involved in the programs, and they just don't provide that much value.

Um but the reason that we're spending a lot of our time trying to get them passed is because we really need to be freed up from the strain they put on us.

Um I want to give one example that maybe is an exception for that that we might push for regardless, which is these the supplemental recusal notifications.

Um I think it's really important to note that transparency is is essential, but it requires context.

And making it really, really easy for me to go to one place and look at every single time someone followed the law, but really hard to then find instances of potential noncompliance creates this illusion of compliance with the law.

So having a list of every time someone recused, which is what these supplemental notifications allow me to find, is kind a little bit of a misdirect from the actual work we have to do to figure out if people are not recusing.

Um that might be an exception from that point.

Also, I think it's important to note that for the board of supervisors, you all don't have to file those notifications.

Um so this would bring the rest of the city in line, which I do think has value in and of itself, having that consistency.

But for the rest of it, I think it's sort of a nuanced answer between whether we would support it versus whether we would spend our time and effort trying to get it passed.

So just to pedantically be clear, you're saying that even if you had full staffing, more staffing, you would still recommend these changes.

Yeah.

Thank you.

Uh thank you, Vice Chair Machmood.

Um I'll ask a couple questions.

Um, just thank you for your forthrightness and effort here.

Um say I appreciate it.

Um question on the campaign consultant disclosures.

I want to make sure I understood this correctly.

You're s in the sl the proposed legislation, they would have to file fewer disclosures overall.

Is that correct?

Correct.

Yet even while filing fewer disclosures, all of the information that is currently available today would also be available in the future, maybe in a slightly different format, but it would all still be publicly available.

Correct.

Um I would give there's one caveat to that, which is the there is a requirement right now that second consultants report the names of local office holders or city employees that have been employed by the consultant or client at the behest of the consultant.

My understanding is that this has never been reported.

Um that would not be covered elsewhere.

So that is the one piece of unique information that's in campaign consultant disclosures right now, and nobody has ever reported it.

So we are comfortable with the fact that that's the only piece of information we're losing since it has not provided transparency into anything thus far.

But everything else would be available elsewhere.

Great.

Thank you.

Um I think it was interesting that you noted that this requirement often disadvantages younger entrants into the profession.

Uh I appreciate that.

I think it's always important to give young people a shot.

So thank you for highlighting it.

Um last question for me.

You talked about the ceiling, quote, lifting.

Can you clearly define the word lifting in this context, please?

Sure.

So it the ceiling would be removed.

Removed.

Great point.

It would not be high.

It would be removed.

Removed.

That's a great point.

Thank you.

Thank you for that clarification.

I didn't want to put words in your mouth and lead the horse to water, but I just wanted to clarify.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Um I don't have any more questions.

Um but uh Supervisor Fuller.

Um questions.

Thank you so much for the presentation.

I really appreciate it.

I just wanted to um share my thoughts on all of these.

You know, we did have discussions with community advocates, and I agree with many of their of their takes.

Some, you know, for example, the raising the contribution limit.

I feel torn about that one because it is more expensive to just run campaigns.

Um, and we haven't adjusted this limit since the year 2000, so it's in some ways overdue, and at the same time, thinking about you know who who would actually benefit.

Um, I think it's the same candidates that would attract unfathomable amounts of outside spending um directed to their campaign.

I actually don't think it would actually limit outside spending in a city with so much wealth um to spend on campaigns.

So at this point, I'm not inclined to support raising the contribution limit.

I my mind could change.

Um when it comes to recusal notifications, the requirements on campaign consultants, uh community advocates warned that it would decrease the laypersons' access to this kind of information and make them go digging for this information in a way that only really journalists, investigative journalists could access it.

Um I mean, it just it brings for me the question of why would we do that right now?

And then related to major developer disclosures, I do share one of their biggest concerns with that is um a developer or nonprofit could easily claim that donations are not payments for lobbyist services, but rather just donations to a good cause.

And then the nonprofit could independently decide to weigh in on the project.

Um so I'm concerned about about that dynamic.

And um when it comes to the independent expenditure ceiling limit, I'm concerned in the because this doesn't all happen at once, right?

Outside money is spent over time, candidates get money over time.

I'm concerned about the instance in which you know outside spending reaches the point just below 50%, which is still a significant amount, something like 174,000, somewhere around there.

An example of oppositional spending, um would mean that they're not able to respond.

And so I think there's a medium somewhere that we're not there today on with these amendments.

Um there's gotta be some some between between the amendments before us today where a participating candidate ceiling would be lifted if the total amount of i.e.

expenditures against the candidate and those supporting the candidates' opponents exceeds 50% or an armed participant candidate in the race, raiser spent more than 75% of the expenditure ceiling in that raise.

I think there's a medium we could find between there, but I don't that's not before us today.

And that's not um this is not something I would support.

Um not comfortable supporting today.

Elections to retirement board, I think I think that's a reasonable one, especially when there's only one candidate who's raised a total amount of less than $80.

Um it's not an election open to the public, but that is where I'm at today.

So thank you so much to the elect the ethics commission for putting all the work in.

I'm sure we'll see this at some point in the future.

Thank you, Supervisor Fielder.

Um colleagues, any more comments or questions?

Okay, uh, Madam Clerk, can we take public comment, please?

Yes, members of the public who wish to speak on items four through six should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Good morning, supervisors.

Thank you for the opportunity to speak today before this committee.

My name is Bill Reedy, and I uh with uh Indivisible SF, and I'm the lead of the state and local action working group.

I'm also here representing our partners in uh around this issue, uh common cause California, the California Clean Money Campaign, and the League of Women Voters for San Francisco.

Um we generally um uh oppose the current legislation as proposed without um uh some changes being made.

Regardless of where one stands on the particulars of these amendments, there is one point on which the American public has been remarkably consistent for decades.

People want more transparency in government and less influence by large political donors.

In fact, campaign spending reform is the one topic on which there is strong bipartisan support.

77% of Americans support limits on campaign spending.

85% support greater transparency around political spending and dark money.

72% believe wealthy donors already have too much influence and make it harder for ordinary citizens to be heard.

And over 80% favor a constitutional amendment allowing for campaign finance reform.

When public confidence is already fragile, rolling back transparency and increasing the role of large donors moves us in the wrong direction.

We and our partners have worked eight months on these proposed compromises that um uh that that we would like to see uh made in the in the current proposed uh legislation by Mandelman.

These requests are not ideological, they're pragmatic, they identify specific administrative problems, and so I have urge you to um uh consider field's concerns as well as ours when you do eventually take up this legislation.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comments.

Next speaker.

Good morning, supervisors.

My name is Natalie G, and I am here on my personal time as a private citizen.

As a grassroots candidate that just most recently ran for supervisor in June, my average donation was 127 dollars from a thousand one hundred-four donations, eight hundred and forty-six of them were individual donors.

And out of that, only 138 were max donations at 500.

And this is raised from friends and supporters who are of the working class and who are already stretched thin economically.

100 was huge challenge for many of my friends and supporters, let alone 500.

Doubling the max campaign contribution to 1,000 dollars doesn't level the playing field.

It just lets candidates with the network of wealthy friends bankroll their campaign in just a handful of checks.

And donors who don't even need a blank at a four-digit amount.

While grassroots candidates like myself and future grassroots candidates will have an even steeper hill to climb.

The excuse that I keep hearing is that the 500 limit is from the year 2000, and we're just keeping up with inflation.

But inflation doesn't explain why people's paychecks aren't keeping up with the cost of living and expenses here in the city.

Working people don't just get to double their donation capacity just because the cons the campaign contribution limit did.

We also keep saying that this is going to align us with other major cities, but I think we also have to remember that San Francisco is a city and county.

One out of 58 in California.

So we are not the same.

Aside from the matching public financing fund increase, this proposal does nothing to touch the real problem of outside spending.

Citizens United, which lets PACs and independent expenditures flood the field with unlimited money outside of the campaign.

Hawaii overturned citizens united.

We can make an effort to do that.

At the end of my election on election day, my cap was raised to 1.3 million.

There was no way I could still fundraise up to that.

So thank you so much for listening.

Thank you, Natalie.

Do we have any additional speakers?

Mr.

Chair, that concludes public comment.

Thank you.

Public comment is now closed.

Um I think um let's take the amendments that President Mandelman described and circulated on item number five.

Um and before I make a motion, President Mandelman, do you have any more comments you want to make on those?

Yeah, um that would it would be my request that you do exactly that.

Thank you, Mr.

Chair.

Um and I do want to again thank ethics staff uh for the clear explanation for all of their work for um trying to do the sometimes impossible things that are asked of them.

I think it is one thing for us to us to imagine a perfect world um of uh complete transparency uh and uh and and fairness in elections and I think it is another thing to support the people who are actually doing the work in the trenches every day as their job to try to deliver transparency and fair elections.

And when those people are telling us they need help, um we should listen.

Um and I have been struck by the lack of interest from some in the ethics advocacy community in listening to the people doing the work.

But with that, um thank you, Mr.

Chair and committee members.

Um I think we may be back to this committee with item six, but for now I would ask that you continue all three items to the to the call of the chair after you uh you amend five.

Great.

Thank you, President Mandelman.

Um questions before I make a motion here.

Okay.

Um I move to amend item five, board file 250868 as described by President Mandelman.

Madam Clerk, could you please call the roll on that motion?

Yes, and on the motion to amend item five as presented.

Member Fielder.

Member filter, no.

Vice Chair Mahmood, Vice Chair Mammood, aye.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, aye.

I have two ayes and one no with member filter voting no.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Um President Mandelman, thank you for for bringing this all forward.

Thank you for your willingness to work tirelessly with um various uh variety of members of the community.

Most importantly, though, Zach, your team, uh, thank you all for your dedication and also two members of the community who are taking time to be here today to weigh in as well.

So um sounds like we need a little more time.

So um, Madam Clerk, I'd like to move to continue items four, five, and six to the call of the chair.

And could you please call the roll?

Yes, and on the motion to continue items four, five, and six to the call of the chair.

Member Fielder, member filter, aye.

Vic chair mahmood, vice removed aye, Chair Sheryl.

Aye, Chair Sheryl, I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Um President, thank you.

Thank you.

Uh Madam Clerk, could you please call items seven through fifteen together?

Yes, items number seven through 15 are five ordinance and four resolutions approve authorizing and approving settlement of lawsuits and unlitigated claims against the city, noting items seven, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen may be referred to the full board as committee report at the July 21st, 2026 Board of Supervisors meeting.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Um, seeing no questions or remarks from my colleagues, let's open this up for public comment.

Yes, members of the public who will who would like to speak on items seven through 15 should line up now along the side by the windows.

All speakers will have two minutes.

Mr.

Sherr, we have no public comment.

Public comments now closed.

Umright colleagues, I'm going to make two motions given the differentiations between some committee reports, some not.

Um first I move items seven, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen to the full board uh with a positive recommendation as committee reports.

Madam Clerk, can you please call the roll?

Yes, and on the motion to forward items seven, nine, ten, eleven, and thirteen to the full board with positive recommendation as committee reports.

Member filter, member filter, aye.

Vice chairman mood, vice chairman mood aye, Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

And now I move to send items eight, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Yes, and on the motion to forward items eight, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen to the full board with a positive recommendation.

Member Filder?

Member Fielder, aye.

Vice Chairman Mood.

Vice Chair Mood Aye.

Chair Sheryl?

Aye.

Chair Sheryl, aye.

I have three ayes.

Thank you.

The motion passes.

Madam Clerk, is there any other business?

That concludes our meeting agenda.

Thank you, Madam Clerk.

Seeing no other business, we are adjourned.