A husband and wife who headed an antipoverty program in Alameda County were indicted Tuesday for allegedly misusing more than $200,000 in taxpayer money, which prosecutors say they spent on travel, meals and home repairs.

Nanette Dillard, who headed the Associated Community Action Program, and her husband, Paul Daniels, the program's former grant administrator, were charged with one count each of grand theft, conspiracy and crime by a public officer.

Although the couple are charged with misspending $200,000, "the final bill" was probably in the neighborhood of $1.5 million, said Robert Lieber, an Albany city councilman and former chairman of the now-defunct nonprofit's board of directors.

Dillard, 51, and Daniels, 47, were fired in February 2011 after a board meeting that ended with a vote of no confidence.

Later that night, the couple were filmed by a surveillance camera in the agency's Hayward offices as they carted away more than a dozen file boxes, prosecutors said.

Dillard later returned 16 boxes of files - although it is unclear what may still be missing, prosecutors said.

According to the indictment announced by Alameda County District Attorney Nancy O'Malley, the couple submitted false bank statements to the federal government to obtain some $426,000 in matching funds.

"And when they got it, it appears that they used it for purposes other than those covered by the grants," O'Malley said.

Dillard is accused of using the agency's debit card to make a number of questionable charges, including a $334 steak dinner at a New York restaurant, massages and a trip to a conference in Las Vegas.

She is also charged with having a crew from the agency's job training program do work on her house and her brother's house at below-market rates.

Dillard and Daniels, who have in the past denied any wrongdoing, could not be reached for comment.

The agency, which ran a variety of job, educational and housing programs, collapsed shortly after the couple were dismissed, leaving Alameda County and the 12 cities that used its services holding the bag for the unpaid bills, plus the federal grant money.

The governing board, which was scheduled to meet only four times a year, has been criticized for its lack of oversight.

Lieber, however, said, "We tried to rectify the situation when we first found out about it. What we didn't realize was the extent of it."

Pricey choice: Repealing ranked-choice voting in San Francisco is not going to come cheap.

Supervisor Sean Elsbernd - who co-authored a proposal to return the city to the traditional runoff system, which his board colleagues rejected last week - estimates it would cost more than $350,000 to mount a petition drive to get the 47,000 voter signatures needed to put the measure on the November ballot.

"That's what we spent to qualify the Muni reform measure, and we had dozens of nonpaid volunteers working on that campaign," Elsbernd said, referring to Proposition G in 2010.

The idea of returning to traditional runoffs polls well with city voters, but doesn't appear to be generating the fire needed to get it on the ballot via petition.

"It just doesn't seem to be generating the grassroots interest that we had with Muni reform," Elsbernd said.

Repeal backers knew the measure was going to fall short when new Supervisor Christina Olague signaled she was voting "no." Sure enough, they lost, 6-5.

There's talk about seeing if Mayor Ed Leemight help work out a deal, but no one is betting on that happening.

Lee did express "concerns" about ranked-choice voting in the last election - but he also appointed Olague to the board.

Trial update: If there is any chance of a deal that would get San Francisco Sheriff Ross Mirkarimi out of standing trial on misdemeanor domestic violence charges, today is probably the day.

Prosecutors and Mirkarimi's defense team are due in court for a pretrial conference - the last step before the two sides square off for the jury trial, scheduled to start Friday.

Chances of a deal, however, appear to be remote.

"There haven't been any discussions so far - and no interest expressed," D.A. spokesman Omid Talai said Tuesday.

And probably with good reason.

Mirkarimi, who has proclaimed his innocence and called a New Year's Eve incident in which his wife allegedly suffered an arm bruise "a family matter," would have to forfeit his gun if he is convicted. Not exactly how the new sheriff wants to start his tenure.

Mirkarimi's attorney Lidia Stiglich, meanwhile, is giving every indication she intends to try to quash the prosecution's key evidence - a neighbor's video of the bruise and the text messages she exchanged with Mirkarimi's wife, Eliana Lopez, after the incident.

EXTRA! Catch our blog at www.sfgate.com/matierandross.