Transcripts For SFGTV BOS Budget And Finance Committee 20240712

United states over the past two weeks. Until we understand the magnitude and the potential duration of increases, it makes sense for us to pause, to make sure we are mitigating the virus, so we can continue to move forward and not backwards. We remain in relatively good shape compared to other major cities. We still continue to have lower infection rates compared to places like new york, philadelph philadelphia, denver, and los angeles. We continue to have the lowest death rate among major cities and the highest testing rate, as the mayor said, currently testing over 5,000 people a day. I am confident that working together we will again beat back the virus, as we have done two times before. But i wouldnt be me unless i reminded you, keep wearing those masks, so important, saving lives by wearing those masks, continue to physically distance, wash your hands, avoid large groups. The holidays are upon us and now is not the time to throw caution to the wind. Lets be here next year when, hopefully, this pandemic will be behind us and we can get together with our loved ones, in close contact, hugging, sharing food, giving toast, but we need to use caution this year. We got do this without the help and cooperation of all of you. So celebrate, but celebrate safely. Virtual election parties, small outdoor Gatherings Limited to three households, and again, please wear those masks. Thank you. This concludes todays press conference. Thank you, mayor breed, and dr. Colfax for your time. [ ] chair fewer good morning, everyone. The meeting will and to order. This is the october 28, 2020, regular budget and finance Committee Meeting. Im sandra lee few are, the chair of the committee, and im joined by the members, supervisor walton and mandelman. Our clerk is miss linda wong. I thank sfgovtv for broadcasting this meeting. Madam clerk, do we have any announcements . Clerk yes, due to the covid19 health emergency, the City Employees and the public and the board of supervisors and the legislativ legistate meetins closed. And precaution is taken to the local, state and federal orders, and declarations and directives. The Committee Members will attend through Video Conference and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if physically present. Public comments are available on each item on channel 26 and sfgovtv. Org or streaming the number across the screen. Each speaker will be allowed two minutes to speak. Comments are opportunities to speak during a Public Comment period via phone call by calling 1 415 6550001. Again, 1 415 6550001. And meeting i. D. 1466495693. Again, 1466495693. And then press pound twice. When connected you will hear the meeting discussions but you will be muted and in listening mode only. When your item of interest comes up, dial star, 3, to be added to the speaker line. And call from a quiet location and speak clearly and slowly and turn down your television or radio. Alternatively you may make Public Comment in the following ways, to myself, the clerk at alinza wong sfgovtv. Org. And if submitted by email it will be included as part of the official file. Finally itemmings acted upon today are expected to appear on the board of supervisors agenda of november 3rd unless otherwise stated. Chair fewer thank you, madam clerk. Call item number 1. Clerk ordinance amondaying the administrative code to require employers of employees covered by the Quality Standards Program at the San Francisco International Airport to provide Family Health insurance to such employees, or to make contributions in the employees behalf to an account established under section 14. 2 of the administrative code. To give Public Comment call 1 415 6550001 and then press pound twice. And press star 3 to line up to speak. A system will indicate that you have raised your hand. Wait until youre unmuted and you may begin your comment. Chair fewer thank you very much. Colleagues, you may remember that this was continued from last week and we had a substantive amendment and so we have heard the daily report and we have had a conversation about this and discussion about this item. Supervisor mandelman is the only speaker on the queue today but we have people from the airport and the usww, and united here local 2, to answer any questions that you may have. So supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman thank you, chair fewer. We spoke quite a bit about this last week and we heard i think very compelling personal histories and accounts of the experience from workers at the airport. I think that this that the current pandemic has made more real and immediate and necessary the reality of dealing of Getting Health Care to workers that are at our airport and their families. So i think that this is important legislation. I thank the committee for accepting the amendments last week. I want to thank my cosponsor who has been there working with me on this from the beginning, supervisor walton. And i want to thank you, chair fewer, for your cosponsorship as well. And as you said we have Kathy Widener and s. F. O. If theres questions for s. F. O. We work very closely with the unions who represent the workers at the airport, and so if it is useful jay martin and lauer an powell from local 2 are also here to address any questions about aspects of the ordinance. So i hope that we can forward this to the full board with positive recommendation today. Thank you. Chair fewer thank you very much, supervisor. Supervisor walton. Supervisor walton thank you, chair fewer and i want to just again say that this legislation is very important for equity and to make sure that all of our folks who work at the airport are able to cover themselves and their families. They are essential workers going into work every day. And they do not have the luxury as some of us to work from home or work remotely. And it is very important that they are also protected. And so i am excited to work on this with supervisor mandelman as well as labor and all of the workers at the airport and i do appreciate you as well, chair fewer, for your cosponsorship and im looking forward to moving this forward. Chair fewer thank you very much. We have heard the daily report last week and i just wanted to say that after hearing a lot of testimony last week, but also speaking to my staff and also speaking to workers, yes, i am happy to im honored to sign on as cosponsor to this legislation. I understand that this is a big list for the airlines but, quite frankly, the last 10 years have been very profitable for the airlines. You know, when theres an industry that makes over 50 billion, i actually think that this is the time to till lie stipip. And so because the emergency calls for it and its about our own moral compass. So having said that, i see no one else in the queue and lets own it up for Public Comment. Clerk let us know if theres callers that are ready. For those on hold wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted. Let us know if theres callers to comment on item number 1 . I will queue the first caller. Caller thank you. Can you hear me okay . Chair fewer we can. Caller okay, thank you. Good morning, chair fewer and Committee Members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. My name is Paul Francois and im with the San Francisco travel association. We are a Nonprofit Organization that markets San Francisco as a Global Destination and we saw indiscernible at the musconi senator. Were working to restore San Franciscos number one economy tourism. The timing of this measure is very problem a problematic as tm industry is decimated by the covid19 pandemic. And tourism was hit first and will take the longest to recover. This ordinance targets the travel industry significantly and increases the costs which will result in the additional job cuts, decrease services and increase the costs to businesses. Its hit s. F. O. Particularly hard 59 today to compare to 49 nationwide. This is in an industry working to bring visitors back and to stimulate the San Francisco economy. The Economic Impact will be felt throughout San Francisco, the majority of businesses that benefit from tourism are Small Businesses, and many of which remain shuttered due to the lack of visitors in our city. The recovery from covid19 pandemic will take years, the travel industry is not expected to recover until 2025 at the earliest. And please work with us to help to recover as a city and to safely bring back jobs and our visitors and to bring our most important industry back online. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, i am josh dover, with Government Affairs. I wanted to reiterate the Important Role that small carriers at s. F. L. Play in providing muchneeded competition and choice for travelers in the bay area. One of the top factors that are our network team and other new carriers that look at when planning where to position our easily movable and finite resource that is our aircraft at the cost of doing business at an airport. As s. F. O. Airport director, theres a letter to the board with the cost of doing business at s. F. O. Will be greatly impacted by the proposed healthy workers ordinance, with estimates that the Health Care Costs could double. The importance of keeping operational costs under control has increased during the current covid crisis. We want to see s. F. O. Rebound to prepandemic flight numberings as soon as possible. Yet proposals that drastically increase the costs is a major disincentive for new entrants and smaller carriers and ultimately will lead to less competition and less choice for the bay area consumers. Again, i appreciate you taking the time to listen to our concerns. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hello, supervisors. My name is kelly powers and im the director of the Hotel Council of San Francisco. And the u. S. Airline industry is in the most fragile and vulnerable position in the history of aviation, and with s. F. O. Losing more flights than most other airports since the pandemic began, the healthy workers ordinance will add unsustainable Cost Increases on the Airline Businesses serving our airports. The ordinance will have dire consequences, which will very likely include large job losses and an impact on the hotel and the tourism industry. Our hotels depend heavily on the business and the Leisure Travel driven by our airline and airport partners. Policies which further harm our already financially devastated airline will have a negative Ripple Effect they dont just hurt airport jobs but they have a negative ripple impact throughout our local economy. Less airport related jobs can mean fewer hotel jobs and restaurant jobs at a time when our economy can least afford to lose more jobs. If the healthy worker ordinance passes it will also amend the citys existing Health Insurance coverage mandate by eliminating an existing 20hour minimum bar that is applicable. So that anyone who works any number of hours at s. F. O. Is subject to the benefits of the mandate. Again, we urge you not to approve the ordinance before you today. Thank you for your time, supervisors. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good afternoon, i am Melanie Frank lynn, a managing director at United Airlines. Im here to speak in strong opposition to the healthy workers ordinance. S. F. O. Is now estimated that the a. W. O. Becomes the law the potential costs to airlines and other businesses at s. F. O. Could go as high as 163 million per year. This figure is five times higher than what the b. L. A. Submitted to you last week. This is a huge discrepancy and i strongly urge that the chief economist revisits this issue and assesses the economic damage to the city before this legislation is advanced. U. S. Airlines are projected to lose a staggering 44 billion in 2020 alone. As i said last week, United Airlines has already furloughed approximately 3,000 employees at s. F. , and 30,000 nationwide. Experts predict that it will take years to recover and even more time to pay off all of the debt that we have occurred. If this is happening, it will lead to efficient job loss and make s. F. O. Uncompetitive. Our highly unionized workforce cannot take another significant hit during these uncertain times. As you navigate through this crisis, we continue to care about our workers greatly and compensate them with generous benefit packages. We must continue to safely encourage more travelers and tourists to the bay area. The local economy is already in a deep hole and less travelers to s. F. O. Means less revenue into the general fund of San Francisco. United is extremely proud of our s. F. O. Hub and we want to continue to see it grow and flourish. This legislation will undoubtedly set back our plans for future growth at s. F. O. And the spirit of cooperation with the city, i with my colleagues, want you to consider this. We hope to have a constructive dig log with the committee moving forward in the days ahead. Thank you for your attention. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning. My name is jack mccain and im the director of Government Affairs at United Airlines in the western united states. Im speaking about the potential impact of this proposal. Last week this committee was presented with a report that estimated the cost impact of this proposal is around 33 million annually. An already staggering cost. However, San Francisco has the costs exceeding 163 million annually. And San Francisco airport has a much clearer perception into the holistic financial impact, more so than any other organization. The incredible difference between these two analyses requires that we take time and carefully consider the widereaching impacts of this ordinance as opposed to taking a ready, fire, aim approach. Rushing the process that has the potential impact of not just my own airline but the industry and the airport and the city, is not a recipe to get it right. The Airline Industry cannot sustain such a large cost impact without there be extraordinary consequences to employment and Overall Economic activity in the region. Already capacity is down nearly 60 and we continue to evaluate the future as we plan to go to 50 of our airline, with long haul reduced. And worst of all our team have 30,000 fewer people than when we entered this pandemic. The airport is an economic engine for San Francisco and it is not immune from the impacts of vastly increased costs, coupled with the demand. And we are proud to serve s. F. O. And we work to find solutions, however, this ordinance will hinder the industry and the city recovery. We ask you to reject it. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, good morning. I am dayna debell for delta airlines. Im speaking to oppose this proposed ordinance. As i stated in my prior comments last week, Airlines Continue to lose money due to the coronavirus outbreak and were far from out of the woods. Delta is losing 18 million per day at the end of q3. The proposed changes in this ordinance would increase the cost of operating at the San Francisco airport significantly. The b. L. A. Report significantly underestimated the costs for this proposal and have it at 33 million and its lower than up to the 163 million annually that the s. F. O. Airport estimates for the proposal. At a minimum, the city should not move forward with this proposal until the b. L. A. Report is revisited and the numbers refectified. And its impacted by the Economic Impact analysis should be completed before moving forward. As we continue to try as airlines and to bring the service back to the flying public, we are all operating with aircrafts that are smaller and the profits that are difficult to come by, if at all. Service for all airlines at s. F. O. Is 53 of what it was just a year ago. When the Airlines Make decisions where to put new flights into the decision its based on the cost of operating that flight against the projected revenue. We will always look to deploy the airplane at the location where we can generate the most profit or the greatest difference between cost and revenue. And dramatic increases in operating costs such as those represented here in this proposal, hinder the return of flights to s. F. O. And by extension the return of more jobs to the airport. In fact, this proposal as others have stated could result in a loss of additional jobs in the market as the future growth goes to other airports and the aircraft are pulled from s. F. O. We request that you adopt the amendment proposed by and communicated to you earlier by United Airlines and hold off on any further action in the proposed ordinance until the Economic Impact is fully understood. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning. My name is indiscernible and over 83 of Southwest Airlines workforce is unionizeized and covered by collective bargaining agreements that apply across the country. Rather than having different agreements for each location like most employers. And it offers extremely Health Care Coverage provisions that already extend to the family members. Southwest plays host to half a billion dollars in raises and benefits in the bay area alone, and is workin one of the most recognized companies in the world and one of the best places to work as said by forbes magazine. I want the supervisors to understand the unintended consequences of passing this proposal. Recently the airport sent communication to the board clarifying the financial impacts of this ordinance. Based on the assessment, the proposal would cost employers at the airport 163 million. A number much higher than previously recorded by this board and projected by the airline. Given the discrepancy in numbers we respectfully ask the committee to delay the proposal until a thorough Economic Impact analysis is completed. Otherwise, the net Economic Impact in San Francisco could very well be negative, and reducing the staff, causing thousands of people to lose their jobs and not have any Health Coverage at all. Thank you for your consideration. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hello, supervisors. Chair fewer, and vice chair walton and supervisor mandelman. This is Sharkey Laguna and most of you know me as the president of the Small Business commission but im also the president of the American Rental Association which represents 98 of all rental cars in america. Many of our members are concerned about this legislation. We all share your concern for the workers and i want to commend you on trying to move forward with legislation that you perceive that will be helpful to them. I want to urge you to be cautious about moving forward. My concern is simply that this may not wind up helping workers in the long run, especially if they move flights to other nearby cities and could hurt the workers in San Francisco overall that are so dependent on the money and the visitors from tourism and so i have a lot of concerns about moving forward with this legislation at this time. There may be a time for the committee and the board to consider an ordinance such as this in the future, but i would urge you to move cautiously at the moment with so much at stake and so many businesses hurting. United airlines has put forth an amendment suggestion, i would encourage you to take a close look at that and to consider adopting that amendment, and i would also encourage a deeper look into the financial and Economic Impacts as others that have called in have recommended. Thank you so much for all of your work and i hope that you will give my comments consideration. Thank you. Clerk thank you for your comments. There are currently eight callers in the queue and 17 listening. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, im scott kennedy, with alaska airlines. Im here today alongside others in our city to voice strong opposition to the San Francisco healthy workers ordinance. I shared last week that we take the health of our employees very seriously and we provide excellent Health Coverage to our employees and their families at an affordable cost with the agreements in place with their labor partnerships. Our company has been reducing jobs as a result of the current downturn in the Airline Travel from the covid19 pandemic. Last week the economists at our trade association, airlines for america, provided you with an extremely conservative estimate of the costs of implementing this ordinance. That estimate was based on the survey of only four airlines operating at s. F. O. , proposing that it will cost approximately 83 million. This was based on survey results from only four Airlines Serving s. F. O. So you could expect the total impact to be higher than that estimate. The citys b. L. A. Estimate is a mere 33 million annually and everyone that reviewed this proposal realized that this estimate is woefully understating the impact. S. F. O. s estimate that the total impact could be as high as 163 million annually is much more accurate and is clearer data than what b. L. A. Used. And one more point to address, sometimes weather or other events cause the airlines to send their employees from oakland or other bay area airports for a such period of time. Proposal, however, would cover every hour of an employees work, no matter how short that time is. Its unreasonable to expect that nons. F. O. Employees can simply move in and out of the Health Care Plans on an hour, daily, weekly or even monthly basis. Alaska airlines has deep concerns about this ordinance and what it means for our recovery at s. F. O. And the bay area and we respectfully urge this committee to oppose proposal. Thank you very much. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hello, supervisors. My name is blaine ossko, with the state and Government Affairs based in the state of hawaii. Thank you for the opportunity to highlight the unintended consequences contemplated in the proposal set forth by the healthy workers ordinance. As a followup from last week we have confirmed that the b. L. A. Cost Impact Report was woefully under in its cost estimates and it inaccurately paints the impact. And the math really matters here. S. F. O. Is among the most expensive in the country for airlines and passengers. Significantly it increases the cost of doing business at s. F. O. And it will have a negative impact on the supply and demand for air service and it will result in additional job losses. This kind of legislation limits the competition and restricts the growth, especially for smallerriers Like Hawaiian Airlines at s. F. O. And has unsustainable increases for our carrier. In addition to that i want to point out some specific burdens that exist with respect to the h. W. O. Very rarely in any job marketplace can you find plans that are available to employees at no cost, let alone to entire families at no cost. The h. W. O. Mandate coverage is so far beyond what even the most generous employers offer their employees, including the city of San Francisco, with their own employees. Specifically Hawaiian Airlines and our workforce is highly unionized and we negotiate collective bargaining agreements which are voted upon and approved by employees that include generous wage and benefit packages. We do not believe that this legislation should supersede our collective bargaining agreements or interfere with our relationships with our labor partners. Thank you again for another opportunity to weigh in on such a monumental decision. I strongly urge you to oppose the ordinance. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller go ahead. Go ahead and speak lisa. Go ahead, just speak. Caller hi, good morning. Im indiscernible my husband is sick and we tried to find out indiscernible he had surgery indiscernible . To go back to work. indiscernible he cannot go to the workplace without pain. The doctor says that he cannot go back to work unless his benefits indiscernible . Cannot afford the medical bills. Its affecting the whole family and myself. I do not know where i will get the money to pay the medical bills. indiscernible money from work is not enough to pay for my bills. indiscernible it is not enough to support the family. indiscernible im still struggling to pay medical bills. Especially now that there is covid19 and our hours are cut. Now there is covid19 outbreak indiscernible . Speakers time has elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, good morning, supervisors. My name is Laurie Thomas and im the executive director of the golden gate restaurant association, we represent restaurants and cafes in San Francisco and the surrounding bay area. Thank you for hearing this item today and for listening to all of our comments. Im calling in on behalf of our local restaurant and hospitality industry, that were very concerned that well be impacted by this legislation. And while we share the concerns regarding workers and health care, particularly during this pandemic year, i have very strong concerns that there will be unintended consequences that will affect our struggling restaurant and hospitality industry. We all know that due to covid19 that the airlines have already had to drastically reduce their Service Levels with the lack of both business and lose Leisure Travel being cut back. And we know that s. F. O. Is still only barely back to about i believe 20 of the prepandemic traffic through the t. H. S. Checkpoints. Less traffic is a direct correlation to less business for many of our shuttered airport restaurants and businesses, as well as our concern that this will affect the restaurants and businesses in San Francisco itself. We are very concerned that we need the airlines and the industry to be able to return to prepandemic Service Levels. And we feel that this legislation, while again well intended, will significantly impact their ability to do so. So the cost of this legislation im afraid goes much further than just to those employers directly impacted at s. F. O. You could argue whether or not they can afford that, but the concerns are is what this will do for greater community. So were very concerned that this legislation would have unintended consequences of causing continued reduced traffic both in the terminal of s. F. O. And also to our city of s. F. O. That contributes, unintentionally im sure to more lost businesses speakers time is elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller hi, i am emily abraham. And the health of businesses and its employees and also believes that this ordinance will have a much larger impact on the wellbeing of our city than expected. S. F. O. Has come out as the previous speakers have mentioned with an updated estimate with the financial impacts. Based on the Impact Report, airline, operators and Service Providers employed 20,634 workers. And the cost of offering qualifying families the proposed legislation would result in an estimated additional annual cost as high as 163 million, depending on the health plan. The industries in s. F. O. Are essential to providing San Francisco with its tourism base which generates 819 million in taxes and fees in the city in 2019. The high added cost would lead to reductions, and the ability to bring in tourists. S. F. O. Provide tourists that go into the city and then will spend 26. 4 million each day for our local businesses. Beyond this concern of the impact on tourism, we urge you to give clarity around the definition section of this ordinance. The intent of this legislation is to for only the employees, and it seems to apply to any subtenant and contractor, etc. If this applies to restaurants, it would be devastating. We encourage you to look at the impacts outlined by the previous speakers. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. My name is Steven Cornell and i own a store in San Francisco for 39 years. Im also the legislative representative with Council District working. Tourism is as we heard, is the number one business in San Francisco. We have all of our neighborhood employees, and our customers, and i know this because i have been directly affected. All of our businesses are really hurting, especially those directly looking for visitors. This is not a time to add a financial burden. Our local businesses are affected. People come into my store are Airline Workers and hotel workers, bus drivers and convention workers, restaurant workers, they all directly are affected by tourism. They all live in our neighborhoods and they are our neighbors. We need a strong visitor strong visitor business to keep our neighborhood businesses going. Please, i really encourage you to have a full economic report that includes the whole citys economic base. Thank you very much for considering it. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, my name is reesea parker and im the Vice President of labor and employment and litigation at the airlines for america. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to our concerns that this proposal is preempted by federal law. When they regulated the airlines, the Airline Deregulation act, the a. D. A. , it prohibited states by regulating them with any state law for crisis services. The Supreme Court held that the a. B. A. Not only targets airlines but even those who are direct or indirect. This ordinance affects the prices and the services. And the ordinance will increase the costs to passengers by 1. 83 per ticket. Thats an effect on the prices. And based this, we know that the b. L. A. Estimate is understated and the actual impact is much higher, as much as five times higher. Moreover, s. F. O. Is already an expensive airport in which to do business and this will reduce flights into s. F. O. Which has an impact on routes. And it will reduce the number of employees needed which impacts the services to passengers. And we are concerned that the operations will appear to be the deliberate intent of this proposal. Although this is a city ordinance, not every employer at the airport our understanding is that retail food and beverage, car rental employees are not subject to the requirements. Only carriers, flights support and aviation contractors and Service Providers. In other words, only those costs who hit the airlines bottom line. And we caution the board that the t proposals will have impac. We want you to evaluate from a litigation perspective. Thank you for taking the time to look at our concerns. Clerk thank you for your comments. Next speaker, please. Caller good morning, supervisors. My name is david lee and im an economist with airlines for america. Like others i read the october 23rd letter to the board with great interest and it validated our concerns that the b. L. A. s cost analysis was light. S. F. O. Now estimates that the 9. 50 fee will result in an additional annual cost of 163 million, and nearly a five fold increase from the original 43 million estimate. I have more information for the committee to consider. A few of the members reported that the financials for the September Quarter and as you know that our situation remains dire. The past quarter, the Passenger Carriers collectively lost 127 million every day for a total of 11. 7 billion. If you break this down in total, we lost an average of 182 per passenger. We are nowhere close to covering our costs and those who think that we can simply pass on the higher costs to our customers at this time. This proposal does not help with the recovery and the ongoing efforts to serve the community. Given our concerns i kindly ask that you do a more thorough economic benefit cost analysis of this proposal. The b. L. A. Analysis failed to account for benefits delivered by the proposal and failed to account for the unintended risks and burdens that will not only hurt the air service and the jobs, but hurt the bayareas hospitality sector, a crucial part of San Franciscos economy. Thank you for your time and consideration. Clerk thank you for your communities. Currently there is one caller in the queue and 15 listening. If you have not already done so, please press star, 3, to be added to the queue. Next caller, please. Caller hi, supervisors, good afternoon. I am shawn williams. I too am with airlines for america. We are the trade association of the major passenger and Cargo Airlines here in the united states. A few points that i wanted to make that have not yet been covered. One is i know that theres been some discussion about the cares act during this whole debate in the last few weeks and the Payroll Support Program that has benefited airline employees and Airline Workers throughout the country. There is a myth that has been perpetuated that this is some sort of a bailout for the airlines and, in fact, it is nothing of the sort. The Payroll Support Program and the cares act is a passthrough directly to employees so that the employees at airlines can stay on the payroll, maintain their health benefits, and continue to get paychecks and continue to be employed so when theres a return to service and a return to demand for airline service, that those employees are there and ready to go. Number two, i wanted to point out that, you know, it was stated earlier in this meeting that the healthy workers ordinance, you know, is being implemented or considered so that all of the workers at the airport have the benefits that are contemplated in it. I would point out that that goal may be what the goal is, but that it is not what the ordinance says or does. In fact, the healthy workers ordinance applies to airlines and Service Providers and the like, but not to restaurants and rental Car Companies and others. Its just targeted at one industry the Airline Industry. That undermines any argument that this is for Public Health purposes. You know, other employees and passengers have contact at restaurants and retailers, etc. , are excluded from the ordinance. It also makes it very clear that this ordinance is aimed squarely at the Airline Industry and not connected to a broader goal of ensuring healthy terminals or Public Health. Lastly, the ordinance does not contemplate other essential workers who work through the city, either at Grocery Stores or other places of employment that may have been deemed essential. Your time is elapsed. Clerk thank you for your comments, next speaker, please. Madam chair, that completes the queue. Chair fewer thank you very much, Public Comment is closed on item number 1. Supervisor walton or mandelman, do you have any comments with the Public Comment that we have heard . We do like to add anything to the conversation. Yes. I will try to be brief. But, you know, i want to thank certainly the workers who called in and i want to thank the representatives of the Airline Industry and the representatives of our local restaurant industry, chamber of commerce. We heard a lot about the dire state of the Airline Industry National Three and here in San Francisco and i think that theres no one on this board who is not sympathetic to the economic devastation that is being wrought across this country in every single in almost every single area. But i i do think that the next step that some of those folks took is not the right one. Which is that getting their operational costs under control requires continuing a state in which workers cannot Access Health care, are afraid that if they get sick they wont be able to see a doctor, are afraid if they take covid home to their families that their families will not have health care. Are afraid that if theyre hospitalized they will be carrying thousands, in some cases tens of thousands of dollars of debt forward with them. I dont think that it can be the case that the right answer to the woes, the National Woes of our Airline Industry, which really do require federal intervention to solve, should be that San Franciscos own airport needs to perpetuate a situation in which some of our lowestwaged workers, immigrants, people of color, do not have access or at least real access to affordable highquality health care. That would be wrong at any time and its particularly wrong now in the midst of a pandemic. I heard the comments about this is not the right time. This is actually the necessary time because these folks are as we all are are in fear for their health as never before. So thats, you know, i think that it is wrong thinking. It is also bad for San Francisco. We want our airport to be a safe place for the people who fly through s. F. O. , for the people coming home, for the tourists when they come back. We want them to be confident that the people who work at the airport are able to see doctors and to get checked out when they have a tickle in their throat or when they have a gnawing pain in their stomach or some other part of their body. That is necessary for us for the good operation of our airport as well as for being, you know, the city that we want to be. I do want to thank United Airlines for putting forward their amendment, their proposed amendment. Were looking at it, but on first pass it seems like that particular amendment would basically strip out most of the employee groups who we are hoping to cover through this legislation. You know, we heard various things about restaurants, whether the restaurants and retail concessions in the terminals are covered. I recognize that the gdra has concerned thaconcerns that they. And they are not covered by this legislation but they are already required to provide highquality health care to their employees. So, you know, i think to the notion that this is somehow targeting the Airline Industry this is not targeting the industry. It is not setting prices. It is simply saying that in our airports that there needs to be a base standard for access to health care for the that applies to all of the folks that are involved in servicing our own airport. So with that i hope that we can forward this to a full board with a positive recommendation. Thank you, colleagues, for your support. Chair fewer thank you very much. Supervisor walton . Supervisor walton thank you so much, chair fewer. I was just ready to second moving this forward with the positive recommendation to the full board. Chair fewer okay. Would you like to make the motion . Supervisor walton i will make the motion that we move this forward to the full board with a positive recommendation. Chair fewer madam clerk. Clerk yes, on the motion [roll call] you have three ayes. Chair fewer thank you very much. Can you read item number 2. Clerk yes, item 2, ordinance appropriating 126 million of series 2020d Public Health and safety general obligation board proceeds to the department of public work and department of public works in fiscal year 20202021 for facility upgrades in zuckerberg San Francisco general hospital, southeast and the other Community Health centers and neighborhood fire stations, 260 million of series 2020c Affordable Housing general obligation board proceeds in the Mayors Office of housing and Community Development for public, lowincome, preservation and middleincome and Senior Housing obligations, 102 million of series 2020f Affordable Housing preservation and seismic safety general Obligation Bond to mohcd for preservation and seismic safety projects and placing those funds on controllers reserve pending sale of the bonds. To make comment call 1 415 6550001 and code 1466495693. And wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted and you may begin your comments. Chair fewer thank you very much, madam clerk. So we have a lot of speakers on this list. There are 10 speakers. I am hoping that we are not going to hear from 10 speakers today on this item. So we have marissa praya, and we have benjamin bacloksi, and joe chen and diana alberto, and mark primeo and chris dunn. Who is the main speaker for this item . Marissa with the office of public finance. Chair fewer the floor is yours. Thank you so much. Let me pull up the presentation. Our intent is that we will speak and other folks are available for questions if the chair and Committee Members have any. So, good morning. Good morning, chair fewer, supervisor walton and supervisor mandelman. Marissa pratai, the office of public finance. Thank you for the opportunity to present this morning. The item before the committee is an appropriation ordinance that will appropriate the proceeds of three general Obligation Bond issuances, the sale resolutions for these items were heard and approved by the budget and finance committee at a special meeting on tuesday, october 6th. And approved by the full board later that afternoon. The funds appropriated are pending the completion of the sale transactions. This ordinance appropriates the financial issuance of the 2016 Public Health and safety bond and are not to exceed amount of 126. 9 million. These bonds were priced last thursday, october 22nd, and the transaction is expected to complete early next week. This ordinance also appropriates First Issuance from the 2019 Affordable Housing bond in an amount not to exceed 260 million. And these bonds are expected to price in the coming weeks. And, lastly, this ordinance appropriates the proceeds from the second issuance of the preservation and the seismic safety a. K. A. Path, Affordable Housing bond programs and in an amount not to exceed 102. 6 million and it is also anticipated to price in the next coming weeks. So with that, as you had mentioned, cha chair fewer, thes a big team viable if theres questions from you or any member on the committee. Chair fewer thank you very much, colleagues, any comments or questions for marissa. Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman are we going to have a presentation from city, or is this it . We didnt hav did have a pren back on the 6th but we have benjamin, and others available. Supervisor mandelman i would like to hear from g. O. C. About their thinking on geographic equity and the expenditure of these bond proceeds. Chair fewer supervisor mandelman, would you like to hear from the b. L. A. First or supervisor mandelman we can do the b. L. A. First. Chair fewer okay. Can we hear the b. L. A. Report on this, please. Yes, chair fewer, and members of the committee, the analyst office. Ill be very brief. We did lay out the general provisions of this ordinance. And we did report on the original bonds issuance when attending this committee in early october. Page 7 of our report summarizes the use of these finds. It is consistent with the prior approvals by the board of supervisors of the sale response and we recommend approval. Chair fewer thank you very much. Supervisor mandelman now has a question. Could we have a representative from mohcd, please. Hi, jonah lee from the Mayors Office, director of Portfolio Management and preservation. Thank you, supervisor mandelman, for the question. Geographic equity is one of our core priorities for really all of our programs. I would say that we are, you know, were not happy with the outcome and we have been really been pushing for greater geographic equity across our programs and recognize it as a challenge that, you know, needs continued work and investment on. And on that front to support reaching some of those goals specifically, we are making such investments in strengthening sponsor capacity. Its really our sponsors who we work with who need to extend and to scale their own operations to serve neighborhoods outside of their core neighborhoods. Were confident that the investments that were making specifically to the small clients capacity grants which are key in identifying funding and pushing for pushing for those grants. We are, you know, actively working with those grantees now to strengthen their capacity to bring Additional Resources to support those acquisitions and, you know, across the city. And, you know, additional tools that will support that work are, of course, authorizing the second issuance of the bonds without that lowcost capital. None of the acquisitions across the city will be feasible because otherwise the rates to those sponsors is going to be prohibitively high, particularly in this new environment where were operating in an otherwise otherwise area of constrained resources, specifically on the more subsidy funding sources. That may not, you know, be the answer that you want to hear. I wish that i could say that we have, you know, have delivered more more projects, reaching those goals. But we certainly are aware of the issue and were working towards addressing it. Chair fewer supervisor mandelman, if i may, i think that you bring up a very good question, and actually, i would like to actually see a chart about where these Affordable Housing dollars are going in investments and in which neighborhoods. What were looking for is geographic balance. I think so, actually, i think that you bring up a very good point and i just want to know are we on a timeline for this . Because if we should continue this item until we get that chart and maybe some more information about a deeper understanding about maybe maybe it is the formula in which this is done that you actually need a nonprofit sponsor to work with. The districts that dont have one i think that then are really at a disadvantage. And its really not the fault of i think the district, but its just the way that maybe that we are depending so heavily on the capacity and what are we doing to build the capacity. So i think that these are all questions that i have grappled with as i know as a supervisor in my district. So i am wondering so, supervisor mandelman, i know that you have a question and i dont want to take over your time for comment. But i just thought that this is something that actually we might delve a little deeper into before we approve this item. Supervisor mandelman yes, or even just holding back the Affordable Housing piece of this. Or whatever is simpler. But i do feel like it would be beneficial to have a little more analysis of where we are, because this conversation has been going i mean, supervisor fewer has been trying to have this conversation for a very long time. I have been trying to have this conversation for the two years that i have been here. I recognize there seems to be a general understanding and head nodding that, yes, this is not good to only concentrate Affordable Housing neighborhoods in a very few districts or a very few neighborhoods, but then we keep doing it. And there was specific language put into the bond but i dont think that was meant to mean a feeling of, you know, that we will spend 10 million in district one and 10 million in district 4 and then were done. But, rather, you know, to create a floor and try to have some of the thinking around making sure that the real gold rush that is happening in every neighborhood or has been happening in every neighborhood in San Francisco doesnt result in, you know, a city where we have incredibly gentrified neighborhoods for the most part and a few neighborhoods where we managed to preserve Affordable Housing. So i thank you, chair fewer, for your suggestion and i think it would be good to continue the conversation at our next meeting. Chair fewer thank you, so ill make a motion to continue this item. But before that can we open this up for Public Comment . Clerk yes, madam chair. Operations is checking to see if theres callers in the queue. Let us know if there are callers that are ready. If you have not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. For those on hold wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. Are there any callers that wish to comment on item number 2 . Madam chair, there are no callers in the kai. Chair fewer Public Comment on item 2 is now closed. I would say that we should probably continue this item to the budget and finance Committee Meeting two weeks from now. Do you think, mr. Lee, that would give you enough time to get the information gathered together . Clerk just to note that i believe that theres a better day. Chair fewer to continue it for three weeks. Mr. Lee, does that interfere with a timeline for you . Id like to actually to maybe maybe marissa or somebody from the Controllers Office can speak to the timeline because im not sure that im exactly clear on the implications of where we are in being able to issue the bond. If this item is continued. I want to just say that, you know, i totally hear the concerns that you have raised today and validate them, but, you know, if the end result of today is a continuance of the item and prevents us from being able to go out to the market and issue the bonds, you know, it holds up many, many Different Things across a lot of our housing programs. Im not sure that that is the intent of the motion to continue. Chair fewer thank you very much, mr. Lee. Marissa, is that interfering with your timelines . Or could you accommodate us for another week . Sure, so one item that i would mention and the City Attorney ann pearson could jump in if she likes. The item before you today is appropriating the proceeds and the sale resolutions have been passed and approved by the board of supervisors. So i dont think that it impacts our ability to sell the bond, its once theyre sold appropriating them into the department. I dont believe that is a timeline issue for either of the Mayors Office of housing bonds. Michelle, could you speak for the Public Health and safety bond, is that going to cause problematic impacts . Yeah, this is michel teretty from the department of public finance. Good morning, madam chair and members of the committee. There would be impacts for the department of the safety bonds and the department of Public Health and public works. We have priced bonds already and we expect to close the transaction on or around the 3rd of november. So the longer this appropriation ordinance gets delayed, the proceeds will have to sit on reserve and the department wont have access for it for several weeks. But i dont believe that will create a significant delay to their projects based on my understanding of the projects. And we have someone from public works here and he can speak to the timing impacts more specifically. Chair fewer thank you. Thats great to hear that its not a severe impact. I would like to make a motion to continue this item. Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman im wondering if we can look forward to the nonhousing bond the question for the City Attorney, if we can what the let the housing bond guess forward. Deputy City Attorney ann pearson. So theres only one ordinance that combines all of the appropriations. So i dont think that you can pick and choose among it, you have to continue the entire item. Chair fewer thank you. Lets do that. Lets do a motion to continue this item. I would say supervisor mandelman to next weeks meeting or two weeks or three weeks after that. It seems that were not going to have a meeting on the second week of november. So it would have to be the third week of november. And then i think that we are in recess because of a thanksgiving holiday. So why dont we continue this to next week because i think that mr. Lee and the Mayors Office of housing, i think that you actually do have that data. Its just putting it in a format that is easily understood i think by those of us who are somewhat novices on it. Thats great. A motion to continue this item into the next meeting of the budget and finance committee. Could i have a roll call vote. Clerk yes, on the motion [roll call] three ayes. Chair fewer thank you very much, madam clerk, please call item number 3. Clerk item 3, resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health to submit a oneyear application for calendar year 2021 to continue to receive funding for the integrated h. I. V. Surveillance and Prevention Program for the Health Departments from the center of Disease Control and prevention, requesting 7 million in h. I. V. Prevention funding from january 1, 2021, through december 31, 2021. The members of the public to provide Public Comment should call 1 415 6550001. Meeting i. D. Is 1466495693. Then press pound twice. If you have not already done so, please dial star, 3, to line up to speak. The system prompts will indicate that you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted and you pay begin your comments. Chair fewer thank you very much. Today we have john anmlechar from the department of Public Health. Good morning, supervisors and i hope that you find it okay during these turbulent times. And thank you on the call to pivoting to a virtual format. Its new for all of us. And i am a Health Program coordinator in the Community Health equity and promotion which is a branch of d. P. H. What we have before you is permission to reapply for a continuation of this c. D. C. Cooperative agreement. We call it 18802, 2018 is when this grant first came out, but weve had a Prevention Grant like this for decades. Over the years, the grants have changed and expanded so that its not just h. I. V. Prevention but it includes s. T. D. , hepatitis c, and now working with people that are experiencing homelessness. So this 18802 grant has three pieces to it. And one of it, the lions share is 4. 2 million for h. I. V. Prevention services. Another 800,000 for epi services. And then a piece of it which is called component b are optin which is a competitive piece that we applied for to reach to improve the outcomes on people experiencing homelessness. Most of the much of the grant supports admin staff and planning and includes the Services Provided by the county by disease prevention and control, in particular the city clinic. Also includes the support for our h. I. V. Prevention Planning Councils, and our Racial Equity communities, and helps fund the staff that also write Program Announcements for programs that are being funded with general funds. I am here to take whatever questions that you may have and if i cant answer them i will forward them on. Chair fewer colleagues, any comments or questions. Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman i would just like to be added as a cosponsor. Chair fewer great. I have one question is that does any of this grant money intercept with what were doing with our Maternal Health . And are any of these funds actually around the prevention of h. I. V. And s. T. D. S and everything else, working with what youre doing at Public Health around black Maternal Health . Yes. So i can cite a couple of examples for that. We do have theres a monthly meeting that is addressing syphilis and congenital sieve fis especially in San Francisco that is hosted by the s. T. D. Branch of the city clinic. And also we have just released an r. F. P. Earlier actually late last year that was supposed to start the beginning of this year but it was put on hold due to, you know, covid. And that grant was actually indicated a shift on our perspective. Much of our money was based on where the data was and the data that we were looking at was behavioral data. So a lot of talk about men having sex with men and, etc. And the focus is now on communities from which people live. So there was part of the r. F. P. Was focused on the black community and also spectacular money for women. So its a little bit different. So were trying to look at the Racial Equity lens and the population focus as well. Chair fewer what is the data telling us about black women and these diseases . I really couldnt say. I havent really looked at things since the last epi report came out which is for the 2019 data. And i havent had a chance to look at it. Its interesting to see what has happened during the time of covid, whether we have been able to provide the same level of services that we have. I know that our covid focus though is is addressing those populations. There are similar populations that are disproportionately affected populations. But im sorry, i dont have numbers but i can certainly get that for you. Chair fewer okay, im just wondering what the data tells us about black women and whether or not and what sort of integrations that we are doing and specifically to them. So, anyway, we can follow up on that conversation. I think that this is to apply for a grant, is that correct . Yes, correct. Chair fewer yeah, we will open this up for Public Comment please, madam clerk. Clerk madam chair, i wanted to note that the proposed amendment from greg wong from the department of Public Health to correctly state that the current application is on file which the clerk can provide you. Chair fewer mr. Wong, do you want to speak at all, dr. Wong, apologies, do you want to speak to the amendments that youre proposing today . Youre on mute, doctor. Thank you. I just wanted to say that we are submitting an amendment to the previously submitted resolution on page 2, line 23 to replace the wording, to the current use application. Chair fewer okay, thank you very much. City attorney, im assuming that is not substantive . Youre correct, cha chair fe, that is not substantive. Chair fewer thank you very much. Madam clerk, Public Comment, please. Clerk yes, madam chair. Operation is checking to see if theres any callers in the queue. Operations, let us know if there are callers that are ready. If you have not done so, press star, 3, to be added to the queue. For those on hold continue to wait until the system indicates that you have been unmuted. And let us know if there are any callers to comment on item number 3. Madam chair, there are no callers in the queue. Chair fewer Public Comment on item number 3 is closed and i make a motion to accept the amendments. A roll call vote, please. Clerk yes. On the motion [roll call] three ayes. Chair fewer i make a motion to move this to the board as amended with a positive recommendation. Roll call vote, please. Clerk yes, on the motion [roll call] three ayes. Chair fewer this amendment passes. Item number 4. Clerk item number 4, a resolution retroactively authorizing the department of Public Health to submit an application to continue to receive funding for the ryan white act h. I. V. aids Emergency Relief Grant Program grant from the Health Resources Services Administration and requesting 15. 7 million in h. I. V. Emergency Relief Program funding for the San Francisco eligible metropolitan area for the period of march 1, 2021 you through february 28, 2022. The members of the public who wish to provide Public Comment on this item should call 1 415 6550001. Meeting i. D. Is 1466495693. Then press pound twice. If you have not done so, dial star, 3, to line up to speak. A system prompt will indicate that you have raised your hand. Wait until the system indicates that you are unmuted and you may comment. Chair fewer thank you very much. Today our speakers, we have bill bloom and dean guitwin from the department of Public Health. But supervisor, you are a sponsor, would you like to say anything before we start the presentations . Only to thank the folks at d. P. H. And the City Planning Council for all of their fine work. Chair fewer okay. Thank you people at d. P. H. Melissa bloom, the floor is yours. Thank you so much, supervisors, fewer mandelman and walton. Good morning, great to see the work and to have a chance to present to you again about more program funding. Dean and i have set aside slides to give you an overview of the ryan white act, and to see more of how the funds get allocated and spent. Thank you. If you could advance to the next slide, please. So ryan white funding on the bottom left is geared to uninsured and underinsured individuals, and its designed to give h. I. V. Services. We in San Francisco are the grantee for actually for three counties, and including moritz and san mateo. Ryan White Program consists of five partings which you can see on your right. Were speaking specifically about ryan white part a, that was the request for your approval with this board. That is given out to mostly cities and counties and a couple of jurisdictions. It may be interest to know that San Francisco county going through d. P. H. Receives part a and part b as well as part d, and indiscernible reads part f. You can read the amendment, and so all of these parts come into or county. Next slide, please. Did you want to speak to the next slide . Yes. I thought that it was your slide. Sorry. So there are about 15,900 San Francisco residents diagnosed and living with h. I. V. As of the end of december 2019. We provide support services to approximately 7,000 San Francisco residents who are eligible for these Services Based on the income criteria. H. H. F. Comes to the board each year for the process for ryan white granting and we reapply annually but we have learned recently that as of next year in 2021, that we will be applying for a threeyear grant and we wont receive a threeyear award after that so well come in every three years moving forward. And the budget is nearly 38 million annually. Ryan white is about 31 of the funt are funding for the Client Services here in San Francisco. Just in the last year we have raised our financial eligibility from 400 to 500 of f. P. L. As the state was doing that for the part d funds so we wanted to create equity on that for the year 2020. And 500 of the Poverty Level is about 63,800. Next slide, please. As bill said, the funding is a three county e. M. A. Or eligible in the metropolitan area, which is San Francisco and san may sao and morin. They have the clients within the three county area. In the past it was as high as 89 , the numbers in San Francisco have been decreasing proportionally as they are increasing in san mateo which is 11 and morin about 4 . And the services have seen a steady reduction in our federal ryan white h. I. V. Funding since 2001 which was it was about 35. 5 million to 2020, a little under 15 million. With the Grant Funding reductions in prior years was reinstated with general funds since about 2012. This current year in 2020, the e. M. A. Grant was reduced by 368,000, and it was a shift with the client numbers between San Francisco and san may theyo that was a hit of 466,000 to San Francisco county services, which we were able to accommodate by moving some of the existing part a funding that were a good fit for ending the h. I. V. Pandemic that we brought to you a few weeks ago. Next slide, please. And we support a funding and we work closely with the h. I. V. Community Planning Council, which for h. I. V. Health services was established in 1992. And there was a separate h. I. V. Prevention Planning Council, the two of those merged together in 2016. Currently there are 50 seats on the council with five cochairs and three from the community and two government cochairs, and where the funding is coming for the h. I. V. Prevention services. And the mission of the Planning Council is made up with representatives from all three counties, those are recruited and interviewed within the council mechanism and appointed by the mayor. We have goals a goal of onethird of the members being nonaffiliated consumers. And then we have a goal of the Membership Meeting the diversity of the demographics of epidemiology of h. I. V. In our area as well. And just a little bit on the right side here on what the structure is. Theres a full council that meets monthly, of course theyre doing that virtually now, as well as for the committees that also meet monthly, with the bulk of the work done within the committee structure. The Council Receives a lot of information and theres a lot of guidance and work diligently done on both sides. Their overall goal in regards to the prioritization and the allocation of the funding is on a macro level. They dont get information per contract or per agency, thats just with the purview of h. I. V. Services as a grantee that we do really respect and treasure the relationship that we have with our Community Planning body. With that thats the last slide and were open for questions. Thank you for your time today. Chair fewer thank you very much, any comments or questions from colleagues . Supervisor mandelman . Supervisor mandelman yeah, thanks, dean and bill, for the presentation. Im trying to understand as to attachment three, the fiscal year 2020 part a application . Sorry to spring this on you without advanced warning, i try to not do this. But i am trying to understand a couple things about this chart. So one thing is i thought that the 2018 was the year that we got under 200. But this report is 322. So i dont know if that was i thought that last year we made a big deal we got under 200. So i dont know if anybody knows what that is about . Ill let you think about that. And the other question that i have is im just looking at the ethnic breakdown of who is getting well, ethnic and transmission categories of who is getting h. I. V. Or appears to be h. I. V. Based on this chart. We have talked a lot about increasingly affecting lowincome folks and unhoused folks and people of color, but, like, really it looks i mean, its disproportionately impacting african americans, but it is really in 2018 hitting latinos. Am i reading this chart right . Is that the deal . Im not sure that the chart overwhelmingly latino men who have sex with men it looks like. Supervisor mandelman, are you referencing a different presentation in slides than what were share something. Supervisor mandelman im looking in my agenda packet. Sorry. We could offer some opinions about it, and respond if you like, but it may be more appropriate for john melacar to answer, whatever you prefer. Supervisor mandelman well, if you have any thoughts on that and maybe i could get briefing on this because its interesting, particularly wondering what are we doing to reach what is going on with the latin x community, and im guessing, you know, that the latina men who have sex with men, and are we just like throwing a ton of resources at, you know, like reaching people who might not going indiscernible or Something Like that. You dont have to answer that now but im intrigued by this chart. Chair fewer yes, supervisor mandelman, i think that is very interesting. Actually i think that it is actually our responsibility with our power of inquiry to really question that and to ask that. We should continue this item to next week and bring that more information and have a deeper conversation about this. This is something that comes to us annually that we approve. So im actually interested in what are the interventions that were doing and are we doing it in a very racially equitable way. And what is it that we found that works and what doesnt work . So are you gentlemen are on a timeline for is thi . Because i think that is an interesting thing. Bill youre looking at me like what. indiscernible . Chair fewer go to next week and we can have like a deeper conversation about it . Totally open. The question is, again, we can actually talk it from the h. I. V. indiscernible to also want to invite folks from the prevention side which is what rafael is looking at, the newly tested positive. So were happy to talk about it from we work with folks once they test positive. Chair fewer sure. You know, supervisor mandelman, i know that we could call a hearing on this, but this seems like a minihearing, quite frankly. And i think that it was related to budget, right . And it is super interesting also what i have been asking also about black Maternal Health. Supervisor mandelman although i would say in at least 2018, there were zero i think mother with or at risk of h. I. V. Was zero. But that was 2018. But i think that unless this screws up something about, you know,. No, were good. Supervisor mandelman to come back and have a conversation. Chair fewer dean and bill, another thing that is interesting to see how were doing in comparison to other counties. My question was is that i think that we managed for your h. I. V. Community Planning Council area, right . So san mateo and morin and we manage the grant for those counties. But i wanted to know like in the east bay is there a counterpart that is doing this work . I think that when we see different sections and People Living with contracting and living with these infections were seeing it fluid throughout the bay area and its sor sort f regional. So it would be interesting for you and in your presentation to actually to show us by county, is this a regional thing that we should be working together with the regional partners . Are they seeing the same trend . Our population is also having great changes in demographics. So im wondering as we have shifted our de dem our demograpt is the outlook about who are the new infections, what are we doing, what are they doing, are we sharing ideas, what is