tv BOS Replay Budget Finance Committee 113016 SFGTV November 30, 2016 6:00pm-12:01am PST
>> all right. good morning everybody and welcome to the san francisco board board budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday november 30, 2016. happy holidays to everybody. my name is mark farrell. i'm chairing this committee and joined by the vice chair katy tang and joined by supervisor norman yee shortly and thank the clerk linda wong for the meeting and sfgtv for covering the meeting today. with that madam clerk do we have any announcements? >> yes mr. chairman. please silence all cell phones and
electronic devices. complete speaker cards and documents to be part of the file should be submitted to the clerk card and on the december 6 board of directors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you very much. madam clerk will you call number one. >> number one is waiver of banner fee for banners of 300 from it is mayor's office and the "shop and dine in the 49" campaign. >> thank you very much. we have oewd up here. >> good morning supervisors. my name is mary ann thompson and project manager for the mayor's mayor's the opposite and -- office of economic and workforce development. "shop and dine in the 49" is our campaign here in san francisco. soft launch in
2014, very well received by local merchants by merchant door oors and in particular small businesses. the program has expanded in 2015 to include a very robust website, very significant outreach which included 300 banners, 500 interiors muni cards and exterior cards andad bias in all of the san francisco newspapers and a decorated cable car and a map. this local campaign is a project that has many stakeholders, in particular our stakeholders are the merchant association and it is corridors. these banners continue to help and repeat the message it's important in san francisco to buy local. by way of background there are 90,000 registered businesses here in san francisco. 56,000 are small businesses who employ 326,000
residents. small businesses are our backbone in san francisco. the best way that we can support them is with this campaign to encourage residents and guests to buy local so i am here for your support to have your fee waived of $4,050 and here for any questions. >> okay. thank you very much. seeing no questions we will move on to public comment. anyone wish to comment on item number 1? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed item 1 is closed. [gavel] . supervisor. >> i am happy to send a recommendation to the full board. >> take that without objection. madam clerk call number two. item 2 is authorizing the general manager of the sfpuc executing the planning and engineering project design services agreement agreement number cs-3 89 between the city and engineers to extend the contract to november 30,
202020 for an total amount of $19,500,000 not to exceed $176,000,000. >> thank you. i am director of the improvement program and this is a modification that you have before you is a vital part of the san francisco public utilities commission sources improvement program. this improvement program is a 20 year multibillion dollar city-wide investment to upgrade our aging infrastructure to ensure we have a reliable and secure system now and into the future. before i move into the amendment i wanted to give you background on the head works facility. if you could bring up the first slide please, it people. thank you. this is an arial of southeast plant. it started up 70 years ago. it's locationed in the bay view hunters point neighborhood and treats 80% of the city's
waterfront and form water flow 24/7 and this is shown in the rectangle box within evans avenue within the footprint. just to describe what the head works does is where the flows from the bay side enter the treatment plant from the north and the south and the first treatment process and has a big job to do. it takes flows in a range of hydraulic conditions during high and low weather and remove grit and screenings and send the flow on and go to the next slide. the existing aging facility is an extremely oarious part of the plant and doesn't meet treatment or seismic resiliency and similar to how a car from the 1940's would look today. the standards are not like they are currently. it was a different era. in 2012 the funds program was endorsed by
san francisco public utilities commision and staff was authorized to do the work for the facility. we held a procurement process in 2014 and selected carollo engineers. planning and engineering services initiated 2015 and the initial contract was for $14 million. during the last 12 months we did planning and preliminary designed and identified additional scope items so that the facility can function as we are intending. bring up the next slide john, and the issues really are we are extreme grit loading that comes into the collection system. we characterized it on testing and get six more times peak loads than any other treatment across the country and this unanticipated level of grit means we need a more robust handling and removal system and adds to the construction cost or
control. the baseline odor model and studies show there is a higher level of control to meet our sfpuc levels of service. we have other facilities that are 70 years scpold in the construction we will have seven other construction projects going on concurrently so coordination is required to develop a construction scream because we will inserting this structure. you can see how impact it is from the first aerial under the type site while operating and the plan will let them continue operating and develop design packages and coordinate a lot of deep straked structures that will require design coordination with our other projects that are adjacent as well. the high level effort there's a lot of engineering analysis, drawings and specifications that are part of
this. and we can have slide four john. seismic requirements are an issue. the soil and site characteristics bay med and fill make this an area where the quality of the soil is not really great and we're looking at meeting the demands for maximum credible earthquake and 7.8 on the andrea and 7.one on the hay ward fault. this is a cut of the inside of the facility, what the future facility will look like to meet these challenges that i have talked about so earlier this year 2016 we went back to the commission and we reviewed our 6.9 billion dollars improvement program and through this level of effort the commission adopted a baseline scope schedule and budget and again identified 2.9 billion dollars of work that is in the phase one effort and this included at that time $385 million for the head works facility, so that all of these critical scope items could be
addressed. it's important for me to note to you that the increase for the project does not increase the overall cost of the ssip, the sources improvement program through the review we conducted some projects had reduce in scope and others had an increase in scope so the purpose of the amendment today is account for the additional design services based on this larger scope of work and we're also looking for design support during the construction phase. we're asking to amend the contract with carollo engineers by 9.5 million dollars and contract value as listed and extend the contract for three years and 20 days to commence november 30, 2020 for a total of term of december 19, 2014 through december 19, 2023. this head works improvement is needed to ensure that the southeast plan maintains permit compliance on state and federal guidelines
and operates reliably. if grit moves through the entire process it basically ends up harming each of the mechanical and treatment processes along the way. this proproject is needed for the levels of service and critical project and the first piece of infrastructure we will be rebuilding at southeast plant. the construction will start next year. staff is in agreement with the budget analyst report and recommendation to approve the resolution and with that i am happy to answer any questions and i have project team members with me here today. >> thank you very much. colleagues at this point any questions? okay. mr. rose's office could we go to have your report too. >> good morning. i am from the budget analyst office. mr. rose is on a cruise right now. >> good for him. >> as pointed out by the
representative of puc this would increase to 14 million to 33.5 million and the engineering contract with carollo engineers from 2020 to 2023. the increase in the contract is consistent with the increase in the project budget which originally was one 84.9 million. and now increased to 358.6 million, increase of 173 million. the increase was according to puc based on identified significant changes to the screening krit and odor system and southeast pollution control plant. [inaudible] on the contract and page four of the report is 6.4 million. the increase is the 19.5 million on page five of the report is driven largely by changes in the budget for detailed design. the design process is expected to be 100% complete by may 2018 ask
and we recommend approval. >> okay. thank you very much. any questions for the budget analyst? okay. we will move on to public comment. anyone to comment on item number 2? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] . supervisor tang. >> i will take a motion to send item 2 with positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor yee and take without objection. >> thank you. >> all right. item 3 please. >> item 3 is airport director declaration of an emergency seawall at airport runways 19l and 19r estimated to cost more than $250,000 to repair. >> welcome back. >> thank you mr. chair. i'm with the san francisco international airport. we're requesting approval for a declaration of an emergency by
the director by the seawall erosion of 19l and 19r in couldn'tance with the code koa. airport staff noticed damage to the end of two run ways and hired a specialty go technical team to assess the damage and impacts. the engineers concluded that sections of the seawall were in critical condition and needed immediate repair in order to reprent a failure of the wall and sink holes and airport staff identified the group to have the expertise to fix the seepage and saw wall problems and will use a crane in order to allow for continued operation of the run ways during the work. though
$1.5 million contract will be paid by the airport's capital improvement plan budget. airport staff does intermeadantly expert the seawalls and around the rerim terof the run ways and facilities and currently developing a more rigorous program as part of the shoreline project which the board of directors found fiscally feasible almost a year ago so on going work on that project continues. it will address longer term challenges such as protecting against 100 year flood levels and the anticipated sea level rise. while this project fixings the immediate issue of the oh region -- erosion and at 19 and potential for a sink hole that would impact the
operations. they have approved this and i am here for questions. >> thank you. i know looking at sea level rise and seawalls and it's a massive thing in san francisco and i represent by part where there is waterfront expose and you are what are you think going it. >> the airport director sits on the sea level rise advisory committee so all of the work is in conjunction with how the city is looking at sea's and the shoreline project which was found to be fiscally feasible in december of last year is a much larger project than what is before us today which is sort of a quick fix. the estimated cost of the entire airport shoreline protection project is 57 million dollars and i believe when we brought it before it's about a ten year project over time to complete the whole thing so
it's a much larger comprehensive look at our shoreline protection than this item. >> okay. thank you. supervisor tang. >> thank you. so just a question on timing so i know that the -- i guess the observation occurred in july and then there was a firm hired to scope out and assess what exactly was the issue and now we're here in november so i just wanted to know during that time period was it simply because you were still trying to analyze what the issue was it. >> it's a combination of two things. one being it took some time for the geotechnical engineers to get to the root of what the problem is so we could fix it hopefully before the rain started although that didn't happen because of the second part which is the u.s. army corps of engineers as well as bcdc have emergency permitting requirements that needed to occur before we brought the item to you so those two factors
sort came into play in the timing of bringing the item to you. >> okay. thank you. >> colleagues any further questions? okay. ms. campbell can we go to your report please. >> yes, as ms. wagner said this resolution is approving the declaration of an emergency and not approving a specific budget but the airport's budget for the emergency work is 1.5 million from the capital improvement program. our question and concern was the fact because there hasn't been a regular inspection program this became an emergency contract which is not subjected to competitive bidding. as you notice on page eight of our report they are working with fema and the port to develop a periodic inspection program which we hope will address that problem. as she said have the shoreline protection project which will address some of the issues in the emergency contract and we recommend approval.
>> okay. thank you very much. colleagues any questions at this point? okay. we will move on to public comment. anyone wishing to comment on item 3? >> good morning supervisor. eric brooks representing san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization our city. we worked a lot on the issue of sea level rise in relation to the bay view hunters point and treasurer island and i would caution the city to really pay close attention to the fact that bcdc and other public agencies are still archaically using previous ipcc estimates of sea level rise that are woefully under estimating the problem. if you look at the new science that came out from james hannen from nasa that has showed -- who is the one that called attention to climate change in the first place to all of us it shows that
we could get several meters of sea level rise, meters of sea level rise by the middle of this century and so as you're going through and approving contracts like this you need to make sure these agencies are actually addressing the potential much more serious problem that the international climate body is still want paying any attention to and that means that bcdc is not paying teapgdz to tif we don't plan for a higher sea level rise than the agencies are doing right now we'll face a situation and we're penny wise now but pound foolish later and have major disasters because we didn't think ahead. thanks. >> thank you very much. is there any further public comment? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> i will go ahead and make a motion to mass it out of the recommendation with positive recommendation to the board. >> okay. moved by supervisor
yee and seconded by supervisor tang and madam clerk call item 4. >> item 4 is the department of public health to accept a grant for the united states president's emergency plan for aids relief and global for the period listed. >> hello i am with the department of public health. this is grant money that is part of the united states plan for engineer plan for aids rerelief and from the ccd and to us and then to the health department and pay for staff with the expertise we have in san francisco with aids hiv prevention and supportive and to countries that are lacking and often in africa and pace for our time and off sets the cost of
staff required to do the work in san francisco. we're requesting retroactive approval because of the delays that happen at the centers for disease control so unless they do a budget and provide it to us we can't execute a subcontract with dph. >> thank you very much. colleagues any questions? we will move on to the public comment. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> i make a motion to pass it with recommendation to the full board. >> okay. we have a motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor yee and take that without objection. madam clerk will you call item 5 through seven. >> item 5 is the issuance of not to exceed $350 million city and county of san francisco and taxable tax-exempt general obligation bonds 2016. item 6 is authorizing the issuance of
not to exceed 2016-012224lbr and aggregate city and county of san francisco general obligation bonds and public health and safety 2016 series 2017a. item 7 ordinance approving $176 million of the series 2018a health and safety general obligation bonds and spreeds for public works and proves and seismic strengthening and public health and safety facilities and critical community and mental health and emergency response and safety and homeless shelter services and thank you very much. i know we have staff here. >> good morning members of the committee. joe chin sf public works, program manager. i am here today to give a short presentation on the program itself, give a quick overview of the program budget components and it is also to give update on what the project has been able to accomplish prior to the
first bond sale and followed by a presentation with the office of public finance and talking about financing above and we will leave time for questions and answers in case committee members have any questions and i brought also members of my team, the project managers for the project as well as i know members of the department are here to answer questions that committee members may have so with that let me go ahead and start the presentation. so i have a quick agenda just to kind of go through what i want to go through this morning. first topic is overall budget and components of the program and by the bond sales source, use of fund, drilling down to details of what the first bond sale encompasses and how we end to allocate the first bond sale dollars and the last two items
are tied together to focus on each of the specific components and the projects and what we have done to date in terms of the prebond funding as well as where the upcoming planned activities for these projects. so this is just a quick -- i don't want to spend too much time on the slide but this program was approved in june and total amount 250 million. this is a collaboration between three departments. we have public health, san francisco fire department, and the department of homelessness and supportive housing, and with the components it's broken down by zuckerberg san francisco general hospital building five projects which is budget of 222 and followed by another small subset of community health projects totaling 50 million and so the
fire department we have the ambulance deployment facility as well as various neighborhood fire station projects and last but not least the homeless service sites with a budget of 20 million. this is a summary of the break down of the first bond sale. the amount -- the resolution is requesting supportive is not to exceed amount of 176 million which 171 million is for project funds with 342,000 for csa audit totaling 172 million and the balance of the 176 million would be spread between the cost of issuance and market uncertainty. in this slide this breaks down
the various projects by our key six components. it shows for zuckerberg of the 176 million we are asking for 112 million for san francisco general hospital projects and then for the southeast health center which is a one of the most heavily health center of the network 18 million and for the other community health centers 16 million and for the fire department between the ambulance deployment facility and the -- 13 million. fire station would be 6.7 and followed by 4.8 million for the homeless service site projects. so moving on to kind of specific components of the program. for
the zuckerberg building five projects was -- with all the prebond funding allocated through general funds we have been successful in kind of hitting the ground running on six projects that way into design. they are the seismic [inaudible] project, a seismic retrofit project for building five as well as the public health lab project which basically relocating the public health lab from 111 grove to building five on campus, physical . therapy and various programs on site in different buildings and all being moved into building five so they can coexist. and this will be more efficient for patient access. for the 112 million that is
allocated in this first bond sale the plan is to complete design and start construction for the six projects as well as to initiate the programming as well as design for other plan improvement and fire safety projects that's been on the discussion for a while. just one note is that this is only for patient funding for construction so in the next bond sale we will be asking for the balance for the construction dollars. community health center. this is of the 50 million this is a subset of that, and this is geared toward the southeast health center so two phases of the health center project, phase one which is for renovating the existing space to improve flow, and then the phase two, which is the addition of a
brand-new building on the same footprint for additional programs for the health center so in terms of the prebond dollars we have been able to complete design for phase one. we had the permit and we actually in bidding right now with anticipation of starting construction january once we have the funding from the first bond sale and phase two is currently in the programming phase based on what we have done so far and for upcoming we're focused on starting the -- starting and completing phase one construction as well as completing design for phase two and starting construction as well. for the other -- for the balance of the health centers focus is on three priority centers, mission, maxine hall
and chinatown public health center and the dollars allocated we have been able to initiate and start programming and design for castro and maxine and some programming for the chinatown health center. in terms of what is upcoming when we get bond dollars start design for castro mission and maxine as well as to start construction for chinatown public health center as well and also there will be a subset of funding that we will be for planning for additional building renewal projects and other infrastructure improvements on health centers and now focusing on the fire department projects the ambulance deployment facility project is replace existing facility locateod
evans and to relocate that to a new site on jer old which is owned by the city. what we have done so far is complete schematic design -- or completing that by january with a team that is currently being selected so that we can start the actual design in january, and what is upcoming for the first bond dollars is completing design and selecting of a contractor for the project and also allowing the pre-construction to start and develop a trade package in preparation for construction to start. construction start is currently targeted for january 2018. neighborhood fire station. the amount that is being asked for is 6.7 million and the first bond sale there were no pre-bond dollars for this particular component, so
with the first bond dollar the intent is to use that funding to solicit -- to bring on board a consultant that will allow the full vetting of the design scope keeping in mind with the guiding principle developed in the project 2010- 2014 and focus on health and safety and functional -- let's see -- cost avoidance -- [inaudible] >> just a second. supervisor yee. >> can you go through this again? you're saying that the first bond sale allocation is 6. 7 million. >> what is it for?
>> starting the programming. they're doing the study. finishing design, and also has funding for construction as well. >> oh -- okay. that made more sense. how much of it is for construction? because the total cost that you down here is 14.5. >> right. >> i don't have the break down with me, but it should be in the -- >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> good morning supervisors. my name is gabriellea and the project manager for neighborhood fire stations so to address the question supervisor yee we have ongoing work with san francisco fire department in the easter 2010- 14 bonds and the need far exceeds the dollars available and we will look for projects and now that we have funding through the health bond we will continue through that track. we're
prioritizing the work for the public health bond in the area of seismic improvements and at several fire stations and. i can go into more detail about that but the intent of the bond dollars as joe mentioned we don't have the benefit of prebond dollars to do the studies so we're going directly into the designs of those identified needs at those stations but again the 6.7 -- 7.6 rather -- 6.7 -- [inaudible] seismic need at those stations. again fire station two on powell street and station 15 on ocean avenue and 38 which california can which is direct two. >> can you get a break down of the total? . >> certainly the estimate is designed at 2.7 million and the fire station is need of a
modification and steel frames in the station. fire station 15 is estimated again predesign at 1.3 million for total project cost. at fire station 15 what we need to do is do [inaudible] concrete walls and exterior walls and at 38 remove the house tower and not sufficient bracing and a million dollars cost. >> i am concerned about the break down for the budget for this regardless of the source of funding or redesign or construction, so forth. i am not getting a sense of what percentage of this funding is going to predesign versus construction? >> understood. okay. so the majority of the project costs do go to construction. it depends on the location and the specifics of the details of
those budgets that will be built when the funding is available, but generally speaking it's a rule of thumb around 70% of the dollars, 65%, 70% are going into construction of those so again the break down at two -- for example 2.7 million total project cost the lion's share goes into construction so these projects are relatively small so the development of them is rapid so we will be able to expend the bond dollars relatively short order moving into design and bid and award and construction so they will happen in short order. >> so my question is do you have a break down of the estimated -- [inaudible] >> yes, i beg your pandon. >> if you can get me a couple of that. you don't need to tell me right now. >> certainly. we have detailed budgets of the project and we can forward that. again we don't have the benefit of prebond dollars but this is our
preliminary numbers based on the studies and the estimates we have done to date and then we will go into that. thanks. >> supervisor tang. >> thank you. just to build on supervisor yee'ss this is the first time i heard the details and what fire stations and what the work is for so this really stems back to my original discomfort with the fact that we swapped out several projects and swaped in different projects at the last minute of approving the capital plan. not your department's fault. if i had the chance for more funding opportunities i would grab it well but talking to the larger process of planning and why we venture into this ten year process i think is important just just to build on supervisor yee's question if we could see how the i believe 50 or $58 million going towards the neighborhood fire station rehab
or seismic work and have that information readily available because this was passed by the voters back in june so at this point i believe we should have that level of detail. >> that's right. and the 58 is for the bulk is for the ambulance deployment facility. >> all right. thank you. >> okay. colleagues any further questions? okay. do you want to finish up your presentation? >> so the last point i want to focus on this morning is the homeless service site. the ask is 4.9 million of which the spending will be used for as well as -- this is anything to be similar to the going to be similar to the fire station and no prebond funding allocated to the scope, so one of the first uses of the bond dollars would be to identify and vet out what are the best use for the funding, but based on our past project experience we have
identified potential sites that we can quickly move from planning to design into construction, so the 4.9 million addresses will be funding for all three phases of the project and that's the end -- >> supervisor yee. >> this question actually is beyond this particular project, budget request. the rest of the funding which is about 16 million left is there any thinking around this in regards to some of the projects we thought we were going to accomplish through the sales tax that we don't have it -- is some of the funding going to be used for some of the projects that
they were thinking about for the sales tax? and again i know it's beyond -- >> i don't have the expertise to speak on that and maybe someone else can. >> supervisor. sam dodge o housing -- office of supportive housing and we have two shelters and part of the work around the navigation centers and the legislation passed had been incorporate the into some of the spending plans we hope with the sales tax it was to upgrade the facilities in these shelters to incorporate some of the learns from the navigation centers so we know we have the three big buildings and they're bond eligible and in the bond to do upgrades for public safety and approaching the clients in a more client centered way so this is what looking to do with dpw's assistance. >> good to know.
>> thank you. >> so at this point that concludes my presentation. i can turn it over to michelle for the financing piece. >> good morning committee members. thank you for having these items. as mr. chin mentioned the voters approved prop igz a authorizing general obligation bonds for public safety health and homelessness projects and item 5 say res authorizing the sale of the bond program. item 6 is issuance of the first bonds in the program in an amount not to exceed 176 million and item 7 is ordinance proceeding the sale of the $176 million and the projects described to you by mr. chin including zuckerberg general san franciscoicize motorcycle and life center improvements and health centers and fire department and fair
stations and homelessness services shelter improvement projects. based on the total amount we expect not to exceed $176 million of the bond and using the conservative interest rate of 3.9% the expected life service of the bonds is $13.8 million over the 20 year life of the bonds that would be estimated two 67.$3 million in debt service of which 93.2 million goes towards interest on the bonds. the taxes on the bonds -- [inaudible] and impact of about $38.69 for property assessed at $600,000 including the only owners exemption of the city charter imposed limitos the go bonds and set value of the city and net exemptions and current outstanding level of
outstanding debt is equals 9.9% of the assessed value for year 15-16 so if the board of directors approves the issuance of these bonds the debt ratio would increase to 1.0 seven and well within the 3% limit. additionally the board approved the capital plan and places a policy constraint on general obligation bonds ensuring that the property tax rate does not -- which funds the general obligation bond program would not be increased above fiscal year 2006 levels of 12.01 cents per $100 of assess d value so the proposed saul of the funds is consistent with that and the rate. we're expecting to price and close the sale of these bonds in january. i can try to speak to any particular questions you have regarding the bond financing and if you have any questions about the
individual projects, anymore questions i am sure the project staff will be happy to answer those as well. >> okay. thank you very much. supervisor tang. >> thank you. thank you. i just wanted to point to the capital planning committee's memo from october, the end of the month, so for this particular go bond there was a recommendation that the board of directors condition the fire department and department of homeless and supportive housing, work with the controller's office, public finance and the capital planning program to develop detailed projects funded by the neighborhood fire stations as we discussed earlier and the homeless site service categories and so then to have those details reviewed by the capital planning committee prior to initiating the construction so i don't know if this is a city attorney question but i am wondering if we need to amend anything to put that in or we
just state it verb what we would like to see happen verbally? >> >> i think just stating it on the record is appropriate here. >> great thank you. >> and supervisor just to speak to that as an office we have met with the project managers initially already. we are going to be meeting again to go over some of the detailed spending plans that you and supervisor yee mentioned in your questions earlier, and we will be going back to the capital planning committee in december before the sale of the bonds and the goal of that is ensure that we don't sell bonds that we don't feel -- so we can spend in a timely manner so those steps are in progress and that's how we intend to move forward. >> okay. if no other questions right now can we go to
our budget analyst report please? >> i will not repeat everything said in this presentation. i wanted to confirm that the based on the presentation by the office of public finance the bonds are within the city's policies on debt limit property tax rates and capital plan and we do recommend approval of these two resolutions and one ordinance. >> okay. thank you very much. seeing no questions we will move on to public comment on items 5-70. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> okay i will make a motion to pass five, six, seven out of committee with positive recommendation to the full board. >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> okay. thanks. we have a motion by supervisor yee and second by supervisor tang and take those without objection. [gavel] moving along madam clerk call item 8. >> item 8 authorization the
mayor mayor's office of housing and community development expend so mow soma community stabilization fund $595,000 address various impacts and destaib on residents and businesses in soma. >> i am from oc d. the proposed legislation would allocate the five $95,000 from the south of market community stabilization fund and some is recommended to go to the entrepreneur center for upgrade to the hvac system and $400,000 is recommended for saipt vincent de paul society of san francisco for the rehabilitation of their administrative offices on howard street. brief background on the soma fund. in 20five the board of directors approved section 4 18 in the planning code which
establishes the rincon district and a rincon community improvement fund and south of market stabilization fee on developers who build new residential development within the rincon hill downtown residential district. the code also created the soma community stabilization fund and established a soma community stabilization fund advisory committee to advise mohcd and the board of directors on expenditures of the fund. the planning code mandates that the money in the soma community stabilization fund are to be used to address the effects of destaibization on resident and businesses in business soma and new developments and the four goals of the plan are one to strengthen community cohesion and neighborhood communication,
two, to support economic and workforce development for low income residents and businesses that serve the community, three, increase access to perpetually affordable opportunities for existing residents, and four, improve the environment and infrastructure and mohcd issued capital projects rfp on a roll rolling basis for capital funds and means that agencies can apply at any time and mohcd reviews them twice a year. mohcd received two proposals and one from renaissance entrepreneur center and the other from st. vincent de paul. the proposals were reviewed by staff and a member of the soma group and staff recommended funding both proposals completely at a meeting earlier
this year. they voted and u nan unanimouslied move proposals. we're seeking the $595,000 expenditures of the fund and i will provide background on the organizations and the projects -- (talking in the background) [inaudible] increase the entrepreneurial capacity. the soma fund has been providing grants to renaissance for last four years for services that include consulting to soma grant consulting and grantees and legal and on site entrepreneurial training to small businesses. the grant would provide five $95,000 to upgrade the heating and cooling and ventilation system and the
total needed is listed and have been identified funds from other identified sources and have $65,000 on reserve for the project. st. vincent de paul provides assistance through homeless shelters and domestic violence centers and the grant would be used for the renovation of ad min offices on howard street and the soma funds are used for direct renovation costs and total as listed. the total project is estimated at 1.7 million. 1.3 million of funds are available from other sources including a private foundation and the mitigation fund and twitter and st. vincent de paul has 30 parse matching funds. fiscal background or update regarding the soma fund -- >> ma'am, can i interrupt? i think we have a lot of background. we have a pretty
heavy agenda -- >> sure. >> i want to make sure we're getting to the chase. we talked about that. is there anything else -- >> yeah. >> okay. colleagues any questions? i don't want to artificially cut it but colleagues if you have any questions? thank you very much. we don't have a budget analyst report so let's go to public comment. anyone to comment on item 8? seeing none. public comment is now closed. >> we do have a budget analyst report. >> you do? >> i'm sorry i can't read very well. let's go to your report. >> i will say with the expenditure of the funds it's still 22.$1 million remaining in the soma community stabilization fund and we recommend approval. >> let's get that on the record. thank you. colleagues any questions or comments or a motion to approve? >> all right. will make a motion to approve the motion with positive recommendation to the full board. >> motion by supervisor tang and second by supervisor yee and
take without objection. madam clerk call item 9 please. >> item 9 is resolution approving the fiscal year 2016 housing opportunities for persons with aids permanent supportive housing renewal grant for $1.4 million for the period of december 1, 2016 through november 30, 2019. >> i am from the mayor's office of housing and community development. the resolution is for a $1,430,000 grant from the federal department of housing and urban department. hopwa as you know is an acronym for housing opportunities for persons with aids and the grant is used to continue providing permanent supportive housing for people with hiv/aids in the community. we have a minor amendment at this time which to make this a resolution to retroactively authorize us to
accept and expend the grant. that would mean simply a change to the title on page one, lines one and three as well as a change to page two, line 13 just to insert the word "retroactive" . that concludes my presentation and available for questions. >> thank you mrs. hayward. supervisor tang. >> i don't have any questions. thank you again for your service and last day with the budget committee and with the city so thank you very much thank you very much. >> thank you. >> we're going to miss you here. colleagues any questions? all right. we will move on to public comment. anyone to comment on item 9? seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> i will go ahead and make a motion to move this out with amendment and move a positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. motion by supervisor yee to accept the amendment move it out as amended positive recommendation and second by supervisor tang without
objection. already madam clerk will you call item 10 and 11 please. >> item 10 resolution authorizing the department of technology and department o technology and the office of contract administration to enter into amendment number one for agreement between the city and county of san francisco and en pointe technologies and microsoft online 365 microsoft online 365 $4,335,418 not to exceed $13,909,873. item 11 resolution authorizing the department of technology for department o technology and the office of contract administration amendment number one and agreement between the city and county of san francisco and en pointe technologies for microsoft online 365 from $4,850,304 to $14,719,597 over the term listed. >> i am with here with the department of technology. i
will be brief. this -- [inaudible] to purchase authority to meet department needs through the expiration of the contracts in may 2017. [inaudible] en pointe technologies. this doesn't require any new budget appropriation. departments use the existing budgets to purchase the microsoft products. we surveyed the major departments as to their needs and the amendments provide purchasing authority through may and worked closely with the budget analyst to eaft with the review and thank them for the work on this and happy to answer questions. >> thank you. supervisor yee. >> just a quick question. what you call the true up cost on enterprise products. >> yes. >> this is where you're saying a fee as people are using the product? >> well, the true up relates to at the beginning of the year we
pay advance for the number of users of licenses and then at the end of the year we survive to see how many we -- survey how many we used and pay prorated amount for increase in the year and that is considered the true up cost. >> and then for the licenses are they annual fees? >> for the most part, yes. >> okay. thank you. >> okay. seeing no other comments ms. campbell can we go to your report on items 10 and 11 please. >> yes supervisor, chair supervisor farrell. you will see on the tables one and two will show that the existing contracts largely been spent up to the not to exceed amount. the increased amount is based on as -- in the presentation based on the estimates of the increased usage to the end of the contract fiscal year '16-17 and expenditures should be included in the city
departments budget and we recommend approval. >> okay. thank you very much. we will move on to public comment on items 10 and 11. anyone wish to comment? okay. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> okay. i will go ahead and make a motion to move items 10 and 11 with positive full board. >> taken without objection. [gavel] madam clerk can you call number 12. >> item 12 ordinance amending the police code to prohibit owners of multiple multiple occupancy buildings from interfering with the choice of communicates and centuries and prideer and occupants and establish requirements for communication service provider obtain access to multiple occupancy buildingses and establish remini for violation of the access requirements. >> today this is i bill i authored and first in the country and affirm the rights of multiple occupancy buildings to
collect internet providers of their choice and closed a loophole used to deny true choice and competition in the city. we all believe it's a good thing. definitely leads to better services at lower cost. unfortunately for thousands of our city's residents and businesses they lack choice in seeking a internet provider and they live in multiple occupancy buildings and barriers or deny the choice of internet provideer and the scope circumstances provideer and the is alarming and 50,000 units face impediments that block service providers from accessing buildings to provide service. i have numerous examples on the commercial side as well and providers. a front page story in the chronicle showed the story of kevin in potrero hill how the property
manager told him hoo had two options and couldn't go with the option of his choice. the property manager wouldn't tell him why. another resident in the sunset wanted faster internet but told no by the landlord and he was again denied. the simple examples and denials shouldn't be happening in san francisco. while the federal government prevents those from entering into service agreements with service providers they continue to exist in san francisco. it's hard to imagine today in the internet capital of the world we have all of our residents and 15% of the school children lack internet service at home. i believe we need to get everyone online and providing more choices and competition for tenants is one of the big keys to closing the digital divide and key to providing affordable high
quality internet options so in terms of the ordinance it firmly establishes the tenants to select providers of their choice, prohibits property owners and landlords interfering with the choice from the tenants and stop dee nying providers access to the buildings. i should note only those certified by the san francisco public utilities commision -- qualified isps can provide service to multiservice buildings and provide they require advance noting in writing for a tenant's request for service isps work with property owners and protect the safety and function of the property and well being of other tenants and make sure that isps pay for the cost involved and full indemnification and [inaudible] compensation to use
the utility boxes or anything inside the building. i believe internet access to be a fundamental right in today's world and our tenants shouldn't be limited with providers. if we provide a leg up for residents in our city we need to advocate and implement policies that give consumers a true choice. we have a vested interest in competition and deliver at the lowest cost possible. i want to thankful involved in the gz issue and property owner groups and business groups. i want to thank a number of the tenant rights group and internet advocates and particularly want to thank my staff and bill sanders from the city attorney's office who did
an incredible job working on this legislation so with that colleagues i am happy to answer questions or open it up for public comment. i think i saw speaker cards here. supervisor tang. >> thank you. just a couple of questions going through the legislation and there is a clause that says a property owner would allow any other type of service to use existing wiring to provide communication services so i am wondering if you could elaborate on that and with contracts and future contracts or the right to the existing wire something. >> i have a number of amendments we will pass out and talk through after public comment. again over the past month and a half i would say we had dozens of meetings with constituent groups work in a way to satisfy people's needs and i'm not going to say everyone is satisfied at this point but in one of the amendments we want to
say any wiring owned by the building owners that's what this ordinance addresses. any wiring in buildings that is own the by existing internet providers or outside people it's not something we should be interfering with so it's existing building with existing wiring owned by the building owners and again why we worked with them and the constituent groups to make sure we talked through the issues with them. any further questions colleagues? okay. at this point we will open this up to public comment. i have a number of speaker cards here. i will call out your names and please sign up on the far side here and want to thank everyone for sticking around. i have some speaker cards not for this item. okay. [calling speaker names]
anybody else please come forward. >> good morning supervisors. my name is dane jasper and i'm the ceo and co-founder of sonic telecom. we are san francisco's largest gigabyte fiber internet and telecommunications carrier. today our network reaches one in five san francisco residents. as san francisco residents choose to our internet and telephone service we're encountering issues with multiple occupancy buildings entry on a daily basis. while the majority of owners see the benefits of having this to the tenants a number of building owners refused to get access to the buildings and reach residents and deliver services. high speed internet access is essential for residents and businesses and in san francisco frustrating for residents who
have gigabyte fiber at their door but blocked by the landlord. as a result we appreciate support from the board of directors on the ordinance advanced by supervisor farrell. thank you. >> thanks very much. next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. my name is sara de young and the executive director of cal telewhich is the trade association that represents competitive carriers here in california both at the public utilities commission and legislative issues in sacramento. we provide voice, broadband and video services to residential as you heard sonic is one of our key members serving the additional and business communicates and level three communications and telea pacific and xo and we have been
hearing -- i have been representing competitive carrieros broadband and voice competition issues since the passage of the 1996 act and hearing from that time from incumbents and legislators and others that competitive carriers should deploy their own infrastructure and fiber and sonic is here deploying fiber here in san francisco san francisco and other areas of the state and building laterals and trying to do building laterals which it proves in to business customers who are tenants in commercial buildings both in san francisco and across the state, and we do encounter problems that we believe the ordinance will address. one of those is just there is sometimes a lack of information on the part of building owners and managers
about what their obligations are. one example that i have heard from one of my members that a owner is refusing access because they alluded a cell tower on the roof and didn't work out well and not happy with the arrangement and therefore no one else in the building so that is one of many examples so again we welcome this oird. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. jim lazarus san francisco chamber of commerce. the chamber has members on all sides of this issue, both legacy businesses that have been in the communications field for probably over 100 years as well as newer businesses and building owners commercial and residential. in the last hour and a half we sent an letter outlining amendments suggested by communication member and building owners. i know some of the amendments have been presented to you by other
participates in this discussions and i appreciate supervisor farrell and his office outreach on this matter. obviously it's a changing universe with communication providing networks and methods of getting these services to tenants whether commercial or residential. i think the real issue the chamber has chaism as a broader issue and with other legislation been the board of directors. absent public health and necessity and major emergency contracts in place should remain outside the scope of legislative changes until the contracts expire and i know there is debate whether it lines up with federal rules of the fcc and the contract rights really of building owners to control
access, number, locations, building issues regarding the structure itself, and how the services are to be provided, so appreciate working with you supervisor farrell and your staff. we would like to continue that work over the next few days to see if this legislation can meet the needs of all current providers, future providers and most importantly the building owners who have to accommodate these service providers. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. name charles barr and the founder of one pass and one of the largest in town and compete with dane and unfortunately i can't because the buildings i operate in he isn't in and i can't operate in the buildings he operates in and that is ridiculous. we should have a competitive environment where we can fight for the customer's business and they make the choice and that's what this ordinance is about and i love ti love this ordinance because
we're saying that the internet is a utility, unique and it's a competitive utility. it's just like water and electricity and everything else except for dane and i want to fight it out and give the best prices and the best service to customers and that's what this ordinance does and that's what we need to support and it should pass this body unanimously. if this ordinance doesn't pass this body unanimously i can't imagine will. what will a note vote say? it will say i don't believe in competition, the internet doesn't matter, or tenants rights don't matter and that is false disptd internet is full of delays. every aspect of trying to build an internet service provider you're faced with delays and referenced by the previous speaker is existing contracts. they must recognize it's a competitive utility and we're all here to serve our
customers and please follow supervisor farrell's lead and pass this unanimously. >> i also want to recognize the other staff that is here as. >> >> i am a policy analyst at engin and a san francisco non-profit that brings the gap between policy makers and research and nal dmal and advocacy on local and initial issues. i want to change supervisor farrell and tang and supervisor yee for having this hearing and great importance to the start up community in san francisco. improving the country's ecee system is important to the economy and more competition means more customers and lower costs and enhanced system for vaitionz. san francisco is know fortunate. the city is home to a relatively large number of providers. many
of the innovative companies are in the room today. but unfortunately even with so many providers in the bay area many san francisco residents don't have access to these competitive services. as has been e brab braited already this morning many residents are stuck with one, two providers because the owners or lrnlds have set up exclusive contracts from precedenting providers from installing the equipment in the building to gain access to tenants. in other cases landlords have schemes if they provide a kick back fee to access subscribers. this suppresses competition and limits the freedom of residents to select the internet provider of there choice. that's why we are supporting supervisor farrell's ordinance and prevent landlords and property owners from refusing out right but allow them to seek just and reasonable compensation from the providers using the process and
increased competition among proiters and making the city livable and grow the start up community and again thank you for holding this hearing and i appreciate your consideration. >> thank you very much. and i want to thank supervisor mar as well. >> i am chair of the government affairs committee for the building owners and managers of san francisco. i applaud the supervisors holding this hearing, [inaudible] and commercial property owners provide everdo support by providing access. i want to that out there we support that. we're all about having happy tenants pay rent in our commercial buildings and for the majority of our buildings we already have multiple providers both roof top and land line based answering our buildings
providing high speed internet to our tenants. it's telling in supervisor farrell's remarks and most of the comments from today most people are focusing on residents and residential properties and not commercial properties. we would like to have more time to discuss our individual concerns. we've just gotten amendment this is morning. yesterday we submitted comments to the supervisor and you will all be members of the board of directors next year and look forward to speaking to you on it. we believe first in line first in time which is what this legislation would do is not the correct way to proceed. there are unintended consequences. we would like to that sopt present that to you.
while we support narrowing the digital divide and our members want that we would like to talk to you about the legislation and as i didn't know it presents concerns to commercial property owners. thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. i'm tracy rosenberg from media alliance which is a san francisco based democratic communications based advocate. i am here to speak largely in favor of supervisor farrell's legislation. i don't think it needs to be emphasized how incredibly crucial high speed internet access is now. you can't get a job without it. you can't access government services without it. you can't get the information that you need to function as a human being without it. when we talk about residents in residential service and this bill it's important to
remember that tenants in san francisco are under enormous stress as you guys hear all the time economically so the scenario where internet can be provided in a way that works for tenants is really important part of the city's maintaining livable and accessible for large numbers of people so when i hear you say or when i hear other speakers say "hold back on this bill. take your time" what i have to tell you tenants in san francisco don't have time. they need you guys to sort of piewf move as quickly as possible to make the city more livable for people struggling so they can access the services that they need in the way that they need them and at a price that can afford so thank you and i hope that you will move on this legislation. >> thanks very much. next speaker please.
>> good morning. i'm i'm kit walsh with the electronic frontier foundation a non-profit in san francisco and protect civil liberties and support the proposal because competition is hymnful for improving the service and decreasing the cost and protecting free speech and privacy of internet subscribers. whether you use the internet you trust them with a lot of power. you leak a huge amount of private information that the isp would theoretically able to observe in which they want to observe and stressing for deregulation to observe and capitalize and for information and express yourself and we and 4 million americans wrote into the fcc to have net neutrality
rules over the years and working to protect privacy and we're facing a new administration that is less protective of those values and competition is an important check on isp abuses that we encourage the board to promote with this issue so that if a customer votes they are not prevent friday an exclusive agreement with the landlord and we will work with you on future measures for isp measures in san francisco. >> >> i also have copy of my comment totion submit for the record. >> thank you very much. next speaker please. >> i am founder of the san francisco bay area renters federation and i am here to here to support this legislation. when i saw first reported in the chronicle i was so thrilled not only because you know it obviously has benefited as the
other speakers have elaborated but it also was a reminder that sometimes you can have public servants proposing practical laws that improve many, many people's lives without making anybody really worse off, and it was an important reminder that yeah sometimes our supervisors get into this to actually pass practical beneficial laws and thank you very much. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning again supervisors. eric brooks san francisco green party our city san francisco and also representing public net san francisco on this issue. we help stop a bad google earth link from controlling our internet a few years ago and we're here to commend supervisor farrell for bringing this forward. this is a crucial piece of legislation. we can't
have landlords determining or lording over our internet access and i want to use that concept as a way to kick this up a notch. this is a great first step. this will make internet access more free to people in san francisco and by the way a lot of small businesses in san francisco that are in buildings that confine them to conexpensive provider, but we also need to think about the fact that we need to have a public internet broadband system in san francisco and that we also need to avoid landlords controlling that, and the landlords i am talking about comcast, at&t and verizon and companies like that. if somebody came along and said about our city streets that we should have a landlord or a big company like comcast control our city streets that we would laugh at that. the internet is like
our city streets for information, and that means that we also need to very soon now we've got donald trump coming in who is going to try to privatize everything in sight we need to soon establish that san francisco is not going to do a private approach, not going to do public private partnerships. we're going to build and own our own fiber optic network system, allow all the players to play and compete and in the process pay us money to fund our $10 billion city government. thanks. >> thank you. next speaker please. >> good morning. bruce wolf today speaking as a public member of net san francisco and we support the proposal and needs tweaking but strongly urge to you pass it today. internet access is mandatory in the
21st century and we urge you to create a publicly owned city-wide gigabyte network for the businesses and in fiber, wireless et cetera on the network to be managed by paid city workers and not third parties except government associations like the airport and freeways were. in this issue of this magazine it highlights multiple occupancy buildings and i recommend that you read it. some amendments on top of the building code and actually workses and meefns conduit into the cabling and internet providers doing the trenching and providing access into the buildings become publicly owned and in exchange for that would be provided perform access to the band with
through the med medium and the conduit and [inaudible] should be mandatory. we need to be distinguish between the proposal you're proposing and mandatory access for competing carriers and the long range issues and mandatory building access is necessary first step providing san franciscans with meaningful choice within the carriers. it's not fair to allow owners to hold their tenants hostage or to a dominant carrier. other proposals like municipal hallway fiber must be considered and most important the city should act like the fcc because we don't know what will happen under the new administration. thank you very much. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to speak on item 12? >> good morning supervisors. brook turner with the coalition
for better housing. our membership of rental properties supports this legislation. we had an opportunity to work with you supervisor farrell to address our issues that i will tough on briefly. the first issue -- well, all of the issues are wrapped in the idea of protecting owners and tenants and to that end we ask that all installation and alerations are okayed by the owner and paid by the provider. the owner can deny installation if it will adversely affect the esthetics of the building or disturb abetos or lead paint which is important to the tenants and
before tin stallation and access sought and obtained through the manager and owner and not the tenant and believe in thoughtful competition and providing our tenants access to the internet they desire and we appreciate all that you are trying to accomplish today. thank you. >> thanks very much. next speaker please. >> good morning supervisors. my name is charlie goss with the san francisco apartment association. thank you supervisor farrell for giving us an opportunity to work with your office on this item. we feel it's come a long way in the weeks since we first talked to you about it and we appreciate the changes that you have made. we. do i want to say we don't disagree with any of the speakers that commented in favor of the ordinance. we believe that tenants should have the right to select their service providers. we would like tenantses to have the choices that works for property owners
big and small and we feel like many of the changes serve that end and we appreciate that. i would like to echo the comeptses of the chamber of commerce. they have submitted a letter which we signed on as well. we still believe there are outstanding concerns that we have. we would like to make sure some of the timelines work for property owners, especially small property owners, the section has a five day timeline and scw for your consideration to extend. it's a pretty short timeline and we would appreciate your thoughts on that, but we appreciate the opportunity to work with you and you have done a lot of work on this and it's come a long way and we appreciate that. we would like tenants to have a choice and to choose their service provider but want to work with the property owner. you have done work on indemnification and that sort of thing and the legislation has a ways to go and if possible we would like more time to work on
this to you. we don't believe it needs to go forward today and would like more time but thank you for the opportunity. >> thank you very much. any other members of the public wish to comment. seeing none. public comment is now closed. [gavel] so colleagues again there are a number of amendments i want to walk through them. first of all i want to thank everyone here who has been participating with me working on the legislation. we had dozens of meetings. i think definitely over -- i can't 11 amendments including some of the ones referenced in the letter from this morning. i appreciate everyone's involvement. i think at the end of the day there are things that we're not going to come to an agreement on but we worked diligently to make sure all matters are heard and protect the legislation and providing choice in the multiple occupancy buildingses and the status quo is not working in the city and i believe we need to do everything possible to make a difference
for the residents so the amendments today and again i think these are reasonable concerns that have been addressed and i don't know i want to thank bill sanders from the city attorney's office and the hard work on this so there's a number of amendments that allow property owners time to respond to get access in order to provide service. there is clarifying language and have providers give plans for installation been gaining access, use licensed contractors and insurance and indemnify the owner for damage and protect against frivolous lawsuits and civil penalties and notice must be given in advance of civil penalties accruing or a suit brought against each other or limitations of concern lead paint and asbestos and architectural building and using
only the area necessary when the property is owned by the owner. all of the amendments strengthen the legislation and again result of numerous meetings with providers and tenants and owners and organizations. i will the totality of the amendments strikeslet right balance at the end of the day and thank everyone for the worj work on this and i ask for a positive recommendation to move forward to the board. supervisor tang. >> i had a in definition of multiple occupancy buildings. i live in a multiple occupancy buildings but in each unit you can pick a different provider but you're talking about a property owner has decided for the building, every person, every unit in the building must
use a particular carrier? >> i think what we have today you know when -- there's certainly instances like that. hopefully internet service providers -- in an ideal world this legislation isn't provided and they contract with landlord s or property owners and so forth. what has happened and if you have an individual right in your building to choose that's great. therefore this legislation doesn't need to apply and people don't need to avail themselves of it. it's in the cases of thousands of units in the city where people are denied to choose the internet service provider to have that competition. that's when people can avail themselves of the legislation so it's in the larger buildings that we hear from but again if there is private contracting between providers and landlords if you as a tenant has a choice that's wonderful. this legislation doesn't need to affect any relationship or what have you. it's simply in the case we have existing issues with access to
internet for tenants and service providers. any further questions or comments? is it possible to get a motion and pass it out with positive recommendation. >> i am make the motion and move it forward with positive rchgz to the full board. >> thank you moved by supervisor yee and second by supervisor tang. [gavel] with that we have item 13 coming up. madam clerk if we go into a ten minute rece >> okay. welcome back everybody to the san francisco board board budget and finance committee meeting for wednesday november 30, 2016. we are back from our recess. sorry it took longer than we originally thought and we're down to the
last item for today and madam clerk will you call item 13. >> item 13 ordinance appropriating a total of $9 million for the real property tansfer tax for fy 2016-17 for the community college fund to support students attending the city college of san francisco and placing funds in the chromier's reserve prending the outcome of the general fund tax renew measures in the november 8, 2016. >> this was sponsored by supervisor kim and campos avalos yee and mar and peskin and supervisor kim is here and i will turn it over to her. >> thank you chair farrell and committee. i know you heard this item several times so i will be try to be brief but to go through the history what is before us today we started with a resolution stating the intent of the board to make city college free should new revenue
pass at the city level. during that time we introduced a real property tansfer tax measure known as proposition w and went forward to the voters it november. it was a slight increase of 2.5% of buildings and properties and an slight increase for properties above 25 million and the ultraluxury real estate tax. we went forward with the voters with the intent of using the new revenue that came to the city from this fund to make city college free again and san francisco to be the first in the nation to be free for all san francisco residents regardless of aim income or gpa requirements and we had a supplemental if it passed to give seed funding to the administration to move
forward with the free city college in 2017. rem fra -- registrations starts this spring and asking the board of directors to commit seed funding for the fall semester august 27 for the administration to feel comfortable on revamping the portal system allowing students to register for free in april. we put together a $9 million supplemental based on some of the following assumptions. one the controller's office estimated that roughly $14 million will come in between january and june if it passed and which it did and thank you to everyone in the room for making sure it passed and passed with 62% affirmation vote from our voters and excited this new revenue will be coming in. with the controller's
office estimating an additional increase revenue of $14 million we put forward a $9 million supplemental. however this number came to be we estimate making free city college today assuming today's enrollment at $12.9 million. we hope that enrollment go up should city college become free in the next year so we wanted to give them an assurance through seed funding for the fall semester, roughly $7 million with a buffer if enrollment goes up and for the 1% administrative fee which we allowed in the special fund that this board also supported back in october as we put that fund together so that is the budget supplemental that is before us today. we expect to move through with the remainder of the funding through the regular board budget processes and then keep that funding ongoing as we continue to work
with the city college board of trustees and administration to ensure that our commitment to our voters, the ones that the board boor has made through a resolution of intent but through the passage of proposition w remains firm and i want to say this incredibly exciting. if we're able to do this here at the board of directors we will again be the first city in the nation to make community college free for our resident scpis can't state how exciting that is particularly in a time when many of us have felt perhaps not have felt depressed about the national election results and this is in many ways a ray of light we as a city can be about inclusivivity and equity and opportunities for all and i want to thank my office for all of their work and my chief of
staff ivy lee and thank labor who came out strongly in the fall to make sure that a measure second to last on the five page bol on the got attention of the voters and passed and i see the labor council here and tim paulson who the executive director and aft 2121 and tim, the president who is here today, and also want to recognize alyssa muster who is in court but hopefully be here at budget committee soon. also our city college board of trustees starting with the president raphael mandelman and the trustees that are here as well as current trustees here and the labor partners for their support and ensure that we could have this discussion today and set aside a supplemental and free for city college beginning
in 2017 so i wanted to give the committee members an opportunity to ask questions if they have any and through the chair if you want to go to public comment. >> unless colleagues if you have pressing questions and i know people have been waiting for a long time or ms. campbell do you want to do your budget analyst report first? >> i will be brief and most of it has been said by supervisor kim but i want to appointment out we have a recommendation in this legislation to revieses it to ree move reference to the controller's and it did pass and it's a policy matter. >> thank you very much. supervisor kim do you want to open up for public comment? >> yes. >> all right. we will open it up for public comment and we will let her run great. [calling speaker names]
>> and i do apologize if the electeds would like to speak at the beginning of public comment you're welcome to come in anytime to speak. >> supervisors good morning or good afternoon. tim paulson. i'm the executive director of the san francisco labor council and represent over 100 unions and i want to start off in the comments because we're proud of the work that we did as a coalition both labor and community and working you know as the word is the city family over the last year or so to move a free city college program forwarded and it's been a great campaign and as most of you know we have been working on our support for city college for almost three years right now
flew the credibility crisis and all the other issues we have been working on so we're here to support this appropriation. that being said there has been certain phone calls that have taken place and conversations over the last maybe 24 or so hours that have seemed to doubt some of the priorities of labor, and i do want to dispel this right now because even though city college was a major focus of this electoral campaign and as the supervisor mentioned at the bottom page near the end of the ballot it still got the votes and with oversight and the board of directors as well as the vehicle on the ballot the voters knew this was about city college but i want to make sure know we support the issues and endorsed the ideas of the trees and the park and rec that was on
the ballot the airport runways we're fully aware of the budget issues going into city college negotiations. >> >> and they're extremely important to the labor movement so i want to be clear about that. we have many priorities behalf of working men and women and continue to for to and this is an exciting victory and we support the funding of free city college. thank you. >> thank you mr. paulson. >> hello supervisors. my name is a noxel ramma and thank you for having the hearing to talk about city college. during the course of the campaign one of the really striking things i encountered was talking to some of the families i work with at community housing partnership realize they would have the opportunity to send their kids to college and it brought a lot of hope. it was a ray of light in an otherwise really dark times and i want to encourage
you to consider continuing the funds for free city college because it will send a message to the country we're about our communities and lifting them up and doing the things that need to be done to build and create sustainability communities. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is susan solomon and executive vice president of the united educators of san francisco so it was really wonderful to see a clear voter mandate for supporting not only a free city college but funding for it. when we campaigned for the funding proposition we campaigned on the understanding and belief that it would help fund city college, and that is what helped pass that resolution, that initiative. from my perspective as somebody who works with high school teachers and para-professionals and students this is such an
important path way for our students. for san francisco unified school district graduates city college is the main first pathway for them. they often then go on to four year colleges and also to successful careers, but to lift the financial burden for our students would be enormous and not just for our graduating high school students but for our own members and in particular for our classroom instructor aids, the para-professionals. many of them are now working on getting teaching credentials and during the teacher shortage it's very important and if they can -- most of them work part time. their salaries aren't high and if they can take classes at city college that are free that will help in the path ways to teaching as well so thank you very much for considering this. >> thank you ms. solomon and thank you for your amazing support.
>> ken tray. political director and executive board member of united educators of san francisco. so thank you supervisors for supporting prop w and supervisor kim's leadership on the issue, so susan solomon i think summed up usaf's perspective and educators perspective on prop w and the importance of providing the seed money so i just want to speak a little bit about my experience for 25 years being a high school teacher in the schools of san francisco. i taught particularly challenged students at mark twain continuation, kids who were struggling to stay in the system, and i can remember so many of those students who went on to city college and made something of their lives because it was available to them. i also taught at balboa high school and had similar
experiences particularly poor working class students many of color which city college was the gate way to success, but particularly as supervisor tang knows i also spent years at lowell high school generally high academic achieving students in a very classic sense and i think it would surprise a lot of people to know that more students from lowell high school went to city college than any other campus, so if you think of the whole sfsud high school community and i think i safely speak for teachers throughout the district we need the seed money. we need to get going on free city college and invite your support, and one last word is sanctuary city we not only have to be concerned about our immigrant families but given president trump's proposals for public schools in this country we think san francisco may have to be a sairchl area for the
very idea of universal free public schools for our citizens citizen. thank you. >> thank you mr. tray. >> a sanctuary for the undocumented and the documented that's where we're are basically right now. supervisor kim so glad to see you. i want to add i'm going to glad you're going to be around and on the other hand i voted for you. >> thank you. >> and glad you're still in the mix. city college. i'm a long time learner there and spend my day and a long-term learner and i'm not the only one. i go back to when city college was free in san francisco and there when city college was in fact free. there was a time way back then slowly and sure she added to the enrollment costs. i want to see that again. i think of these dark times -- maybe supervisor
kim who said it was a ray of light and other rays of light so i am here to give my support. as a long time learner, a long time learner in san the idea of a free city college. thank you fellow human beings, brothers and sisters on the planet. >> thank you diamond dave and before the next speaker comes up i will call the next ten speaker cards. i apologize i didn't see chancellor lamb for being here today from city college and i will bring you up after public comment to address our budget committee. i will call all the trustees if you would like to speak. [calling speaker names]
>> good afternoon supervisors and i also voted for you jane kim. my name is [inaudible] and i work with community houses partnerships and i just want to say having passing w -- prop w is very important for the people that live in san francisco. let this city be the first to have free college in san francisco. you know my opinion is that you know society is not educated you know cannot prosper so education is important not just for of color but people in general. we have people from other countries and they the can't go to expensive universities and the first stop is the community colleges and i was shot five years ago and the crew that helped me and i am standing here and who knows? some of them
could have went to city college and now at san francisco general and it's important for all people of all colors and races. thank you. >> thank you. thank you mr. president. thank you for being here today. >> thank you supervisors and supervisors. i want to as others have done thank you for your work on this measure, on prop w and free city college and thank you you everyone in the building that has been supportive of city college through the last years of challenges and i want to thank the voters who by overwhelming margins this year expressed their love for our city college passing prop b by more than 80% and prop w by more than 60%. just to remind folks free city college is a great idea for a lot of reasons. for one thing it puts san francisco at the cutting edge at a national
movement to make higher education affordable once again and that is really important, but also it allows us to provide access to vulnerable folks that wouldn't be able to attend and undocumented students and won't equal for financial aid when they need it and other students struggling with not just fees and textbook costs and transportation and housing cost and provide a little additional help to help them stay in school. for me as a trustee i really value the opportunity this provides to rebuild the enrollment that we've lost over the years due to the credibility process. we have lost 30% of the enrollment and from 100,000 students to 60,000 students and facing a loss in funding because of the decline in enrollment. we are contemplating making
cuts to the budget that will decimate the city college that people know and the best things to stop that from happening get our credibility back -- keep the accreditation in january and it's important to. do i think the voters passed prop w clearly for free college city and provides for other city priorities and those are important i think it's also important to keep the trust of the voters and not breach the trust so i hope you vote for the supplemental. thank you. >> thank you president mandelman. >> hello supervisors. i am here today to ask respectfully that you recommend this budget supplemental go to the full board as supervisor kim and others have said. this is a voter mandate, 62% of san franciscans voted for prop w and they did so because they really believed in free city college
here in san francisco. undoing the will of voters unfortunate we might expect elsewhere but not in san francisco. i spent the last year campaigning and talking about city college and i can't tell you the number of people who approached me on the streets to say how excited they were to vote for prop w because it meant they or their spouse or their child or parent would finally be able to go back to school. these voters voted for prop w expressly with that in mind. and largely while the feaivetion a trump administration are still unclear we do know that the effect on public education is going to be chronic under funding and a dramatic move towards privatization and given i was brought to see this board unanimously pass a statement of a sanctuary city from the
president-elect for immigrants and lgbt folks and communities of color and i want this board to remember that a critical previous sanctuary is the promise of a better life and that's what we do at city college. that's what these fundses will a louis to do for the marginalized community negligence san francisco and including as president mandel man said and the undocumented students who will lose resources and with that in mind stand with the voters of san francisco and stand with city college and recommend this budget supplemental to the full board. thank you. >> thank you mr. temrano. >> hello. my name is bridget davila and i'm on the board of trustees for city college. i am very proud to hold that position and i know that from this last election and when i ran city college is' reloved institution
in -- beloved institution in san francisco. i meet with a lot of trustees and nobody has the city support that we do and i know you know we haven't been a perfect storm of problems over the last few years and this is such a ray of light now to have free city college, and i just want to make sure that you understand how important it is to plan in advance. this is why we need this to go forward to the board of directors. we need to plan in advance so that we can start offering free city college in the fall. now, i also want to mention my day job and professor at san francisco state university and i teach a critical thinking class and we went over false dilemmas and i think it's a false dilemma to create this option of it has to be monies have to be dedicated towards sanctuary or another area opposed to city college. i
know we have capable supervisors and you can make the right decision regarding this save city college. >> thank you trustee dav villa. >> good afternoon supervisors. adele fields carpenter director at the youth commission. i stand today on behalf of the commissioners that are in class today some at city college but as a ccsf alum and a former full time student there and the accessible affordable education, a civic minded education has a lot to do my ability to continue contributing to the city, so for the last four years youth commissioners priorities have included the city exploring ways to increase enrollment at the college. they held after school hearings on referred legislation from the board and fully supported both the real estate transfer tax with the understanding that it would go towards funding the city college assistance fund and fully
supported the city college fee assistance fund when that came to them so i think this is part of supporting and maintaining a world class community college here in san francisco. it's also part of supporting our i young people who are phasings rising costs and the cost of completing a four year ago is so much more than a denegation ago and while we're look okay looking at education with the upcoming administration how we're informing the electorate and lifelong learning of residents here in san francisco and how we're supporting the young people to make sure they have the resources to educate themselves and to continue to contribute to the city and remain here so just here to voice support for the supplemental today and to kind of reiterate youth
commissioners' intention and thank you for your time. >> thank you so much for being here. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is phil pierce with the coalition for healthy trees and safe sidewalks and major support of prop e in november. i am here to say that we're in no way against free city college, but also want to remind the supervisors and the mayor's office that some of the money in the transfer tax was promised a major way to fund prop e and now the mayor is threaten to use the kill switch on it and so i just want to urge the supervisors to stand with the 80% of people that voted for having the city take over all care and maintenance of street trees and stand up for street trees here in san francisco. there is plenty of money for the trees and city college and millions left over for other programs as well. thank you. >> thank you. mr. piece.
>> good afternoon supervisors. my name is jonah. i'm a former student of city college. i transferred to uc davis and completed my degree more recently than. i want to stand here and remind the supervisors that at city college my experience as well as many other students was choosing between paying our tuition or paying for books, paying for rent or paying for food came right up against being able to attend school. i applied for a board of governors fee waiver despite from being a family called middle class every semester because it is that difficult to pay for these services in the city. it is a college that serves the city's most vulnerable residents and gives them an opportunity to get a leg up, to get training for vocational jobs, not just people who are looking to go to four year universities but people looking to get experience,
welding and car personality tree and other fields and this is a voter mandate with the cost of prop e and w is indicating for san francisco our priorities are city college and education as a whole with the upcoming administration we want to make sure to protect higher education to show that not only is san francisco but california an example for the nation to follow in protecting education and being a promoter of free city college and giving this initial funding will allow us to increase enrollment and focus on making a stable transition to that free city college promise of prop w. thank you for your time. >> thank you mr. martin and before ms. ford speaks i will call up the next set of speaker cards. [calling speaker names]
>> good afternoon supervisor. yes, i want to thank each and every one of you for your support for this three year effort that coming finally to fruition today. i want to echo what the previous speaker said as i feel about city college. he couldn't have said it more beautifully so i won't talk about the college and that experience right now. i want to talk about san francisco values and i am connie ford and reporting jobs for justice and coalition of ten, 12 unions and community organizations that made funding free and free city college a priority for the last three years and the boots on the ground to do the hard work that
we did to support this initiative but it's about values. it's truly about values and our values that we talk about in san francisco of educating everybody here, everybody here, is something we can do for really not that much money. i mean we can pay for this. prop w the controller is saying $14 million is probably going to come in the next six months from january to june. we can do this. city college might cost a little more than that for the year but the first 9 million will get us started and make us move forward with our commitments. you know the other thing i want to say briefly this horrible election that happened in november in dc we cannot let it control us. we can't let it control us. we have to be the beacon of light san francisco as we always have and legislation
uniting and hope for the future and that's what city college does. that's what a free city college does and that's what vote today to extend the vote to the board on tuesday will do and if you take the position that could not just support this right now then we urge you just paout without a recommendation to the board next tuesday so let the board decide what we can go from there. thank you. >> thank you ms. ford. >> hi. my name is jessica and esl instructor at city college of san francisco and i want to support the seed funding for the free city college and the reason i am here today is to speak on behalf of my students. so i work with immigrants. the students in my classes come from all over the world places like china, yemen, el salvador, iraq,
japan, mexico all in one class together. they work hard to learn english and they're an incredible source of energy and hope to me but also to our city and to our society. but they also face many barriers to their success here in this country more now than ever. for many of them -- in fact i would say for most immigrants and their children as well education is their path to success. it is their way to move forward and to have a better life and my students confirm that to me every day. so funding the free city college initiative really is a way for us to reaffirm our commitment to the immigrants who are such a vital part of san francisco, and i would say that as many people have mentioned after the results of the election in november this community really needs our
support now and needs signals from us, from our leaders, from our college that we do support them and that we're going to take concrete steps to make sure they can achieve their dreams. thank you. >> thank you. >> good evening supervisors. i am theresa. i'm a student from city college, and member of puc. thank you for taking your time for listening to us and thank you for support -- to help us to pass the proch sigz w. thank you. and san francisco must be example and ensure access to quality education for city college and our city, so
for students for ccsf. thank you again for supporting us. i'm a mother. i am a mother of two childs. they're teenagers and i don't speak for all of the students but my son and daughter they're really excited "mom, we're going to have free city college?" i hope yes and drop sigz w passed already so please help us and i am happy to help you to pass prop e and proposition w. thank you. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. i am ian and here on behalf of all of california, a local non-profit working on a
long-term campaign to reform proposition 13 to increase funding for public education in california and i am here to speak on behalf of and my support of free city college and i wanted to thank supervisor kim for your leadership on prop w as well as everybody else that worked so hard to pass this. you know we clearly live in very uncertain times. there's clearly a lot of anxiety about what is going to happen with this next administration or concern for the most vulnerable communities and there's a lot of uncertainty that we all feel but one thing we shouldn't be uncertain about when a near super majority san francisco voters votes for free city college we should not feel uncertain that our elected
officials will fulfill the promise and please support clear mandate and stand with the voters that supported this. as someone that personally went to community college and benefited greatly from it i can speak to how great of impact it it had on my life and i hope all san san francisco cans with benefit from this. thank you so much. >> thank you. >> thank you supervisors for being here listening to folks. my name is vanessa an organizer as well with evolve california lending an additional voice why we need this supplemental seed money for our students and for our community here because investing in education is a proactive response to the complex dilemmas facing this country. free higher education is about restoring opportunities to marginalized communities.
it's about empowering the next generation of leaders to build a just and stable future. as an advocate for education justice you know i really am -- am really hoping that our elected officials proceed with prop w and allocate it for city college because you know san francisco must set the example and ensure access to quality education. our state has long abandoned our master plan providing for an affordable accessible quality and mostly diverse education and as we said here throughout the campaign and we've known before it as go san francisco as goes california and as goes the country and i hope we keep our promise to our community here and ensure that we look for our students over profits more than anything else. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is allen fisher. and i
am here to support the funding for making credit classes free at city college. we worked very hard to get that passed. i have been teaching esl for 35 years for city college. my students are mostly latino and asian students, and i always try to encourage them to take credit classes and when i tell them the cost of tuition and books i can see in their faces that that's a real challenge to them, so i really do believe that this money will do a lot to provide more opportunities for our students who are here under challenging circumstances to try to get a better education, and now at this time it's more
important than ever to have an educated population, so critical thinking skills and other skills that are needed -- like social and political awareness. they're needed to make this society good so we really need to get these funds. thank you. >> thank you mr. fisher. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is maureen doing an and registered nurse working in san francisco for 27 years. i here today a representative of the california nurses association and the san francisco nushses that we represent. we have been a strong supporter of prop w and urge you to keep your commitment in keeping city college free and not to delay its implementation. the health of san francisco depends on all of us to better our situations through
opportunities that education provides. we want to a san francisco that represents all of us and not just the most privileged thank you. >> thank you so much ms. doing an and also to the california nurse frs the incredible support of prop w. >> >> thank you supervisors. thank you for your leadership in passing free city college in the election and supervisor kim for your leadership and there are leaders that went through city college and got their nursing degree. as a matter of fact one of the co-presidents got her degree in nursing from san francisco city college. city college of san francisco is a great treasure for the city and the area. i didn't go to community college and after i
was able to change careers this. is important to the fabric of the community, to future leaders in the community so i encourage this council to move forward with funding city college now and know that the funds from prop w will be there but we want city college free as soon as possible. thank you. >> thank you ms. boden. >> hi. my name is duane. i am with community housing partnership and i believe that this is a win-win situation not only for the students but the city itself, the first city to have free city college i think would go down in history, would be great. >> thank you mr. seers and also welcome back. >> thank you. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is james tracy. i work
at community housing partnership and the co-chair of the proposition w campaign and teach part time at city college. community housing partnership took an active role in preposition w because we saw it as a smart piece of legislation to help achieve free city college but leave millions of dollars on the table to help you guys jobs to be a lot easier this spring because we know -- because we provide the services that the city has other needs as well as evidenced of 72% san franciscans voted for proposition j. we don't envy the task in front you have to fill all the holes but we definitely are in absolute support of this $9 million supplement. we want to work with you to help fund the new department of housing and -- homelessness and supportive housing. make sure that's a success. it's a hard road but
i think that this supplemental and this campaign to make city college is actually in the spirit of supervisor farrell's internet legislation that was just passed odd of the community and more for all and shows a vision of what the city could do to make more access for people, and we can get there together, but only if we resist some of the pot holes around divide and conquer around the many things so thank you very much for all of your leadership and look forward to working with you in the spring. >> thank you. before mr. kramer speaks i will call up the next set of cards. [calling speaker names]
>> carl kramer campaign co-director for the san francisco living wage coalition. many of our members are very low wage workers, $13 per hour. many are in calworks or they have been timed out of calworks or undocumented. they have children. many of them have left school to have a child, and for going back to school in many ways it's like convincing someone to go into a 12 step program. it's a major battle and the easier it's made and the less paperwork and the simpler and the least expensive for people who are -- their monthly budgets are bleeding red ink where a parking ticket is a financial disaster. the fees at
city college make city college inaccessible to them. we want to be able to start talking to people about getting into city college for fall 2017. this supplemental i think is a major step towards letting people know that yes they can get into city college. those skills that they need is a path to a living wage job. the possibilities that young people have that all they need is the access to school to be able to get aa degree or get that certificate. that's the next step forward for them to be able to survive and support their families. please vote us on the supplemental. thank you. >> thank you mr. kramer. >> michael lyon. so i worked
15 years at san francisco general hospital and the kind of job i had took me all over the hospital and i have got to tell you everywhere i went there were graduates of city college in nursing, respiratory therapy, radiation, radiology graduates, and i think the important thing about that is that they were low income people and people of color who got into those jobs because they were able to get through city college. now, a lot went through city college when it was free. that's when i taught there, but it is extremely important for health care to have compassionate understanding nurses and other
health professionals working there, and a free city college will make that happen. city college of course has been under huge teax by the state and -- teax by the state and the accreditation agency and lost quite a few people and it's necessary to get those people back immediately and having free city college start this fall can let that happen. the other thing i think we've got to say we cannot let ourselves be divided and fighting each other over homelessness, education, or any of the city services we need. we need them desperately, and there is ways to be able to get additional money and we need to. >> thank you mr. lion.
>> good afternoon. jordan gwendolyn davis and i want to say i support free city college because when they go right we go left. it would help disabled people because we be able to take risks to better our lives and help trans and queer people because we don't have families to fund us. with prop w which i voted yes on and donated to you all made a pinkie swear to this city's voters both moderate and progressive had that this new luxury tax would fund tea college and embezzlement to back out to saul san franciscans. there is reports that people want to break this because of austerity. don't put us against each other. it won't work. even with the right ring regime at the federal level don't be
on the wrong side of history and keep your pirngy swear and vote yes on the supplemental. thank you. [applause] >> thank you. >> good afternoon and happy holidays. my name is ms. henry. 50 of -- first of all thank you for letting me be here. i'm a student and a late bloomer at the city college. i was one of the ones responsible for keeping the civic center there and ask you to make history and my family and my neighborhood being being a late bloomer to be educate to the fit in my community and to reach out to people that is reaching out to me and once again thank you for passing prop w and please squeeze us in somewhere to make me part of the history of san
francisco being a movement for free city college. >> thank you. >> lee loveet. i'm an academic counselor at city college. we provide the kind of invisible infrastructure that really is critical to san francisco, so if we support and commit to free city we will only make the city stronger as we face tough times ahead. can i speak to two populations. >> >> directly besides the high school students graduating and coming to us. we are looking at people that work every day in the preschool and child care centers where they need ongoing training so they continually attend college while raising their own kids. our motto is "we keep san francisco working" it's an important population and might want get financial aid but this will help getting the
support for city college and to keep their jobs and the other population is actually people who need job training. they're unemployed. they are often graduating from the universities and unable to find employment in good paying jobs so they come looking for computer science, networking, biotech program which what i serve and these folks really need city college as well. they might want qualify for financial aid because of the four year degree but this is the additional step beyond the education they have received to continue to get a good paying job and support the infrastructure in the city. >> thank you ms. loveet. >> good afternoon commissioners. i am mr. louise and part of a youth group south of market. i think city college should be free because san francisco is one of the most
expensive cities and like myself who lives in a low income family it's hard to pay for books and classes and supplies. making city college free will give high school students and youth another door to open instead going straight to work. there shouldn't be a fee for people trying to further their education. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> commissioner thank you so much for being here today. >> supervisor kim always a pleasure. and good afternoon to the rest of you that are up there. i am mary claire and sf native and raised in the tenderloin and south of market. although a commissioner i am here representing today south of market community action network -- [inaudible] youth organizing home and [inaudible] and the youth unable to be here today so on november 15 i and other san franciscans voted to make city
college free and it's your job to uphold this that the voters passed. my story is graduating high school and a smart woman with a future and she decided city college (paused) factors out of our control. making city college free is about making education more equitable for those that lack the funds and resources and opportunities giving the resources to be successful so i encourage all of you as our governing bodies and as the ones that make this decision to make it happen. thank you. >> thank you commissioner. thank you for being here. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is raymond castillo and
work as a organizer for south of market action network. i want to talk about two things if you guys don't mind. the first one is you know growing up people always say to succeed in life you need to get a better job. to get a better job you need to go to college. to go to college you need to graduate high school; right? now, you know let's imagine for a second let's go back in time and middle school, high school, we work so hard test after test waking up in the morning, you know, all of this and the moment comes in. you're graduated. yahoo; right? and then because you're a low income you can't go to college, so what happened to that better job? what happened to that better life that we strived for, that we worked so hard for our family; right? so how are we
supposed to succeed in life? the second one is we're always told the youth is our future. now, i still believe that the youth is our future. that's why it's important for us right now here to plan in advance to stand with the people to stand with the voters. put budget to make city college free not just for us but the future of this city. thank you. >> thank you mr. castillo and before the next speaker speaks i want to call up my remaining speaker cards. [calling speaker names] and if i didn't call your name feel free to line up with the rest of the speakers. thank you. >> hi. my name is win and a current student of city college
of san francisco and part of the ccsf solidity community and group of students to ccsf and non students who have part of the organizing efforts for prop w and what we want to reemphasize prop w would remove the barriers and give us access to the education that we need. a lot of the students you know and including me it would benefit us greatly. the cost of living in sf is really high and a lot of students we have to decide between books and tuition and another needs and so aside from moving barriers what gravitates students to come to city college is also the diversity studies and that's one of the efforts that we have been working on is defending diversity studies and that full community is -- has benefited from and some of the studies are unique at city college across
the nation. filipino studies and latino and african-american and asian american, commissioner -- pacific islander and middle east and it remains a safe space and it should remain a safe space and we must continue the fight to make ccsf more accessible and not let this go. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for being here. >> good afternoon supervisors. eric brooks san francisco green party and the local grass-roots organization our 73. just strongly support this allocation. first of all it's important that we fund all three homeless services protecting
undocumented citizens and education, free education, because homeless people and undocumented citizens can not lift themselves out of their circumstances without getting an education. let's remember that in california public education of all kinds including university education, not just city colleges used to be free and that's the direction that we need to be heading in, and we've got a president coming into office who is appointing a secretary of education that wants to go exactly the opposite direction and privatize all education in this country, so this education is your crucial first vote after the election of donald trump to say no we're not going to stand for this. you passed a resolution. you got up and made speeches. that's all great, but if you're not going to back up speeches and resolutions with actual legislation and actual funding to fight the trump administration then you're not
showing the courage of your convictions and any supervisor on the board of directors that does not support this allocation is not showing the guts to stand up to trump so you need to support this. it's absolutely crucial. thank you. >> thank you mr. brooks. >> good afternoon supervisors. my name is dan flanagan from friends of the forest. i wanted to thank you for hearing us today and first make it leer that we're not against -- clear we're not against city college but in favor of a free city college. i think i spent three months of my time out campaigning for prop w also and actually followed many of the people in this room of trying to convince various community groups to vote for prop w. i am here to remind the supervisors that prop w also supports prop e which is really important to have the street trees maintained by the city and i want to thank
all of you supervisors for supporting that unanimously. we just finished a survey of all the street trees in san francisco and the preliminary numbers look like right now that over three quarters of the trys in san francisco -- trees in san francisco are in poor or fair condition which is exactly why we're doing what this legislation is supposed to do, so i am strongly underring the board to -- urging the board to consider all the issues around the revenue measures and we know now that the mayor is forced to make some very tough decisions. we just hope that the people who voted, the 278,000 people who voted for prop e are successful in having their needs met. thank you very much. >> thank you mr. flanagan. >> hi. good afternoon. tim kima kelly. i am
urging you to move this forward and respect the will of the voters. prop w passed with over 62% of the vote and prop b and parcel tax passed with 80% of the vote. the board of directors previously voted 10-1 to prove this proposal forward -- move this proposal forward. this proposal is fiscally sound. right now the controller says there are $14 million that is going to be raise friday this and this supplemental asked for 9 million. >> >> so there is money left over from the money that was raised from prop w. it is critical that we move forward and that we can show the rest of the nation that we can move forward with progressive proposals that are designed to help all of our citizens, and that we can show
that by actually implemented it in a fiscally sound way and i think this is the perfect example of that. the city said they want to spend this money and voters want to spend the money to support a free city college and what's we should be doing and moving forward with that and hope you support the supplemental. thank you very much. >> thank you president kima kelly and also for 2121 support. >> hello my name is hairy burn stein and a faculty member at city college and thank you for considering this measure. i do advocate of course for supporting this budget supplement. i just wanted to remind you that eric mar's committee brought up that there was $300 million of economic activity per year associated
with the college so there is much reason to support it. my students both credit and non credit are strongly supporting proposition w. they remind me that education is vital and they advocate lifelong learning. the college has really been reeling from now it's more than four years of accreditation crisis and that is really had an impact on -- we've lost faculty members. we've lost thousands of students as you know, and there must be be a way forward. this money would bring -- would be strongly supportive of students and we've heard about the opportunities that would
come forth from people who are not currently associated with the college who would benefit from job training and skills for themselves and the community. thank you. >> thank you. >> hi. my name is jenny holy and an english teacher at city college and vice president of aft 2121. i am here to urge you to support the measure and remind you that this is an housing opportunities for persons with aids to show that cities are going to be. >> >> >> municipal cities are the first line of defense against this terrible trump administration that seems to be coming in and i also -- i justed to tell you a little story. the day after i came in the classroom after the election my students were crying and in so fear for their families who are
undocumented and i am talking about like big burtie tattooed guys crying for their family and fear and the little ray of light one student said "but guys school is going to be free next year" and they're excited. don't let them down and they're registered in a few months so they need it now and to pass and funded and happen before they register for the spring. thank you. >> thank you. and i see one last speaker so if anyone name i didn't call please line up. >> my name is ben becker and a former delegate for bernie sanders and co-chair of the bernie crowd. we would like to thank you for the vision in making the college free. i started my college experience at another community college where i was going to school full time and working full time in the nights and it was incredible
difficult for me but it was also life changing. during that time my roommate was a kenyan immigrant and working as a janitor full time as a nursing facility during the nights and weekends. after a year and a half he dropped out of school because he couldn't afford the expense and he couldn't handle the stress of going to school trying to work night and evenings and weekends like he was so i would like to commend you again for the hard work that you're doing. i think this is going to go very far to help people like my friend allen to see the opportunity that's available to them. thank you. >> thank you mr. becker. >> good afternoon. my name is roger scott. i have been at city college since 1972 and been on the executive board of aft
2121 all except one time when i lost an election. i have been a teacher for 48 years i believe and four countries and five states of this country. i am an advocate for accessible public education, higher public education because the administrators and some of the board members at city college probably don't think i've had a very good life because i've had disagreements with them but i've had very useful life and productive i think for the most part, and that's due primarily to my having access to a large state university in texas that charged $25 a month tuition, a semester. it went up to 50 the semester i graduated, and having 3-degrees also a certificate in paralegallism from city college and never taken out a student
loan me in a fortunate position and i would like others to have access to higher education. the student loan debt is terrible and we have to something about that. i would recommend to you that you familiarize yourself with the california master plan for higher education. it's a wonderful document, very humane and we need the free city college would be part of that unique opportunity for people who deserve it very much. thank you. >> hello. my name is theresa fuller evans. i want to say hello to all the supervisors this morning or this afternoon. i will retired so i kind of lose time you know but i'm with the service workers international.
i'm a retired from san francisco community college and a student from 1971. i worked there for 24 to 25 years as a custodian and i have to say i know for a fact if i hadn't worked at that school and got my training there's no way i would be where i am now. meaning that you know i don't have no -- i don't have degrees or anything but i have vast knowledge as far as stripping and waxing floors and stuff that people would love to do and can't do and learned about chemicals and all kind of stuff from city college and i have taken it everywhere i went and taken that job with me and as you can see i am healthy. everything works, you know what i am saying? i'm not broke down and it's a great school and even throat teachers ice commend the teachers for trying to so hard.
>> >> i have been a custodian for over 30 years and everywhere i have been they want me to cam back. i worked here at city hall when dianne feinstein was the mayor and i stripped and waxed the floors here when willie brown was here so it's a long life. i couldn't have gotten that life had i not went to city college you know getting the training they need because people don't understand chemicals are veryiffy. you can't mix the bleach with the ammonia, you know what i means? it makes the gas. you know what i mean and i just appreciate you guys for even thinking about us and i hope that we all can work together to help people because it's just so sad now when i walk around and see so many people in disarray and everybody should be able to go to school or get training. everybody is not going to be a doctor or -- you
know what i mean? we're all going to have different jobs but it's still a job and a good job so i thank you and i thank this city for my life, the life that i've had. >> thank you. >> -- you know working. thank you. >> thank you. thank you for being here. thank you for closing out our public comment, so at this time -- would you like to speak? are you sure? you came all the way over here so we would love to hear from you if you came here. if you don't speak we won't hear from you. >> hello everyone. my name is malcolm. i have told this story so many damn times but just now returning to city college after at this point of 11 year stint. came to city college back in 05 and like most people going to city college for the first time
when you're young you're absolutely terrified not just by the people around you, the new experience, but obviously how the hell am i going to pay this bill? i am 35 years old now and i just signed up for the spring courses and yeah -- you flinch at that number. $500 for three classes you know which i will be glad to pay because it's my education but yeah it would help a lot if that burden was lifted and thank god prop w did pass, but to hear that those funds maybe going somewhere else other than our school is very disheartening, but thank you for hearing me. thank you guys and that's it.
>> thank you so much for attending and for speaking today. and seeing no urt public comment chair farrell. >> okay. public comment is now closed. [gavel] >> thank you. i am so sorry they missed the chancellor lamb is here in the audience and i wanted to give you an opportunity to address the board. i would have done that at the beginning of the committee hearing and my apologies for not seeing your face and the vice chancellor of finance and administration is also here to answer questions that the committee has but chancellor lamb i appreciate you making the time to be here and i know you have many things on your plate as the china basin channel for city college and your work ands guidelines. >> >> and mr. gearheart and make this happen in august so thank you. >> thank you. i want to first off thank the voters of san francisco and also thank the supervisors and others that
helped put this together. as many of you know and other people put eloquently city college has been a point of access for not just education but for opportunity in this city because only by accessing that education whether talking career technical jobs, whether we're talking at a hospital, whether we're talking about cleaning the floors, whether we're talking about cooking the food or talking about the certified nursing assistants or the remgsterred nurses all the way up to the ceo at the general hospital was actually a city college graduate that got their start at city college so they access that opportunity through city college. this is a critical time. in order for us to implement this for our students for next fall for the fall 2017 semester our students
start registering in march and april. in order for us to implement that we need approximately two, three months to get appropriate programming in and to do the front side on the implementation, so this is a very important time for us to move this forward. there are other places in the nation that are start to put forward similar programs. you hear them. they're called promise programs and what it says that very thing. i promise to the citizens and to the students that they have an education that they can afford, so i do recognize that the city budget is very complicated. there are different priorities that are out there, but i do really appreciate your looking at this issue and consider tg because i think it is consider important to our students and not just our students but to the city in
regards to offering opportunities to everyone in this city. vice chancellor gearheart and myself are both here if you have questions you would like us to answer. >> i know the committee members have the name on the roster but quickly i said registration gins in april but i want to clarify the date for the fall semester. >> it's a tiered process so we have priority registration i think starts at the end of march which is our disabled students, our veterans, our foster youth that have priority registration and then general registration doesn't start until the end of april, beginning of may but it's a tiered process based on need. >> registration begins on march -- >> i can look up the act date. >> great. thank you. and i know when we brought forward the
timing of the supplemental we introduced this back in september we were working based off of your guidance of the time for the administration to do some of the technical work to allow students to register for free at city college through the portal, the electronic portal that you use. >> right. we have several pieces of it. one piece is the programming piece that we actually have to program to be able to determine residency and the other criteria. the other piece is also obviously we're expecting a large influx of students through the financial aid office where they have to be processed and through the admissions and records so setting up those processes so that we're not et cetera raing to those -- reacting to the students coming but it's a streamline clear process coming in and we can facilitate that would take a couple months. >> thank you so much chancellor lamb. >> okay. colleagues any
questions for the china basin channel? . supervisor yee sorry. >> are we done? i don't have any questions. >> we're didn't with the presentation so any questions for myself, the china basin channel -- china basin channel. >> just a. >> >> chancellor. >> just a few perspectives from me and thanks to the students and those involved in this. i guess a few perspectives. first of all the concept of free city college is something i s i think as budget chair and what i mentioned when we voted on this earlier in the year especially what happened at in november and not the national level and everyone is appalled at that but locally to have the question for free city college
is a false thing right now and we have a budget deficit that we have to solve for. city college is one of the issues that obviously came up and i know the voters passed proposition b regarding the parcel tax specifically for city college and passed proposition e and people were here supporting street trees geared -- overwhelming the voters approved and set aside for maintaining the trees and proposition j and transportation and other issues and because k it's not coming to fruscpigz i appreciate the proposition w and it didn't mention city college and it was a transfer tax and it's a fair discussion how we're going to spend the dollars from the board of directors but from
my perspective as we sit here today th needs to be taken in the context what are we doing with the holes in the current budget? and whether it be homeless service, something they certainly have spent a lot of time on, something i want to see funded in this current year and next year, about street trees. supervisor campos introduced a supplemental i believe yesterday regarding fam funding for immigrant funding and they're competing for the same finite amount of dollars and i am happy to support a form of this supplemental but from my context and a broader discussion and chair of the committee committee we need to have the discussion of all the issues we face financially as a city so that's my perspective. i don't know
whether our controller or mayor's budget office would someone be able to articulate for us right now kind of compared to the budget because of what happened in november and specifically prop k doesn't pass and prop l and the soda tax and i forgot to mention and spending for that tax and the deficit compared to what we had before and assumed in the budget and potential competing interests here that we have to fill. >> supervisors. ben rosenfield controller. i can talk about technically where the budget sits given j and k on the november ballot so as you recall the proposed budget and the adopted budget for the city for the current fiscal year assumed the passage of a three quarter
cents sale tax on the ballot and assumed in both years of twot year budget. that revenue was assumed at approximately $37 million and the fiscal year we're in and annualized in the budget for next fiscal year to approximately 155 million. the budget also contained corresponding expenditures that effectively we're spending that revenue. they largely mirrored the spending plan outlined on proposition j on the ballot so approximately $50 million analyzed for homeless service enhancements, $100 million for transportation enhancements. those revenues were obviously uncertain at the time the budget was adopted by the board and signed by the mayor and as practice for us the controller's office held reserves in the budget on the possibility those should fail so we discussed
this at the time of the budget but we have $37 million of hose homeless service and transportation services in reserve and 155 million in reserve on the current fiscal year budget in order to maintain a balanced budget, so obviously also on the november ballot proposition w passed which was not assumed in the budget so that leads to above budgeted revenues in the current fiscal year and you have this proposal and supplemental at the board of directors to spend a portion of it. the budget also didn't assume for the second year the passage of the street tree baseline which goes into effect july 1 next year and create a $13 million unbudgeted cost so you have a set of expenditures in the current year that were assumed and revenue that was assumed. that revenue has failed and those expenditures
on on reserve by our office to keep the budget balanced. at the same time you have a revenue that wasn't assumed but proposals in the current fiscal year as reflected in the supplemental and in the budget year with the passage of the street tree baseline and a portion of those. in terms of frankly the mayor and the board has choices to make at this point how you want to reconcile the facts. our office as charter require side maintaining the reserves on the transportation and homeless spending that was assumed in the budget until someone else gives us other direction to maintain the budget balance. should the mayor and the board wish to proceed with a portion of that funding we need to certify an alternative plan to bring those -- that budget back into balance in the current fiscal year is the way to look at it. >> thank you for that. i appreciate it. if we're down
37 in the current fiscal year we're up what because of w and v which is the soda tax? >> in the current fiscal year we're -- so we are down approximately 37 million in sales tax that was assumed in the budget. we have gained approximately $14 million in transfer tax. there's also additional news. our office published the city's comprehensive financial report for last fiscal year and identifies that we ended $12 million better than expected. that revenue is also available to spend in the future year or future years sorry you have piece of. >> >> so you have that piece of news. that news is largely driven by better than expected property tax last fiscal year that is likely to recur in the current fiscal year. our first quarter estimate of tax revenues for the city indicate we're $25 million above budgeted level
frs our major taxes in the counter year and good revenue news applied to off set the short falls or held for next fiscal year's financial challenges, so there's a number of different pieces of financial these floating around at the moment. the other item coming up shortly of course is all three financial offices are scheduled to release projections and likely next week and the mayor's office is issuing budgeting instructions next week and it will change and not certified by all three officers but the preliminary projections likely forecast a short fall in the neighborhood of $350 million over the two years so we have approximately over 100 million in the first year and likely 250 million in the second year. those numbers are will change and the projections will be final next week there's a lot of
piece of res new revenue news and to consider when making the choices and i appreciate that. just to get into the implications of november and the election employed we were down $37 million because of the sale tax not passing. up $14 million this estimated use proposition w and up "x" amount by the soda tax this year? >> if you're looking in the current fiscal year there is no implication of the soda tax and doesn't go into effect until the following january. >> okay. based on november's results we are $23 million short in the current fiscal year compared to what we had projected and i understand it was on reserve and all those good things. >> yeah. >> so and again colleagues
this is the point as i sat here. again we will have discussion in the upcoming months and budget year and exactly this week every year the controller's office publishes the last year's close out where we're close to $12 million in the positive, but that has to address a projected $350 million short fall that we have to start dealing with next week literally in the upcoming years and among major things we have all of the labor contracts up next year so again to reiterate my concern to take this as a one off topic and of all the challenges that we have. i think it's irresponsible to deal with them on a one off basis. we need to talk about them together. i don't know if voters and taxpayers want to pay for people to go to city
college or get homeless off the street. i think it's a fair discussion and we have to doctor that discussion and based on the november results we need a discussion on all of the topics. >> >> we can't let them go unsolvedded if you will. so in any case i say that as background. again the concept free city college i love. i certainly would love to hear more detailed plan how it's rolled out and more details exactly who will serve and so forth. with that being said and perhaps the unique position of chair of the committee committee i don't think we should have these conversations on a one off basis and similar separate supplementals and one off discussions and votes immigration, on homeless services and street trees, what have you. this needs to be taken together. yesterday it was a hearing request for a budget and finance committee to
hear about the outlook of the budget, the five year outlook that is published hopefully next week as well as the mayor's budget instruction s and the projected deficit we're facing and combined with the short fall in this current fiscal year so from my perspective i think we should be entertaining all of the discussions together and irresponsible to have them separately and not acknowledging that we're competting for finite amount of dollars here in san francisco and we're in a short fall this current year, not just think going the projected $350 million short fall for next year. with that i will stop and let me colleagues have a chance to speak. supervisor yee. >> thank you. first of all let me spem stem back before -- step back before i share a different opinion. we all know that city college is really important for
many, many, many individuals students and really important for the city as an institution and i'm not saying this because it's in district 7, but and i really appreciate the stories that people came with their personal stories how it's impacted their lives and maybe i will share a little bit of that in terms how it impacted my life. certainly i went to city college and it really helped me get my head together to see what do i really want to do with my life at that time and it was free too at that time and i saved money and went to cal and that was my experience. i also was an instructor
for ten years at city college and when i was a student i saw stories -- not stories but real life situations where individuals said "i'm dropping out. i can't -- as that one gentleman was saying and the pressure of trying to work full time and go to school full time was a lot for some people, and i also saw people that didn't even enroll because they couldn't afford tdoesn't sound it would be a big deal for those making little money and didn't come from privileged families it's a big deal and i understand that and maybe that's why i am so passion about this whole free city college movement, and again one of the things they looked at we could talk about -- and i have heard this before like we
should do it during the budget process and we start supporting a bunch of supplemental during the year and we have done this over and over again, and this discussion to me is about if the sales tax that had passed and prop w wouldn't pass i wouldn't come up and ask my colleagues you know we should support free city college imais and just rob it from the sales tax even though everybody on the board knew it was really dedicated for something else. in my mind prop w was the revenue source and was created as a revenue source so that we could have free city college. eventually we tagged on as the board of directors we tagged on the cost of trees taking back the trees and that was because when i did the analysis of prop w and asked
the controller what's really the projected revenues on there? free city college had -- did not -- was want going to use up the revenues not by a long shot so i knew there was enough revenues in there for two other items if everything were equal. one was the trees. the third one which i kept on hinting at bringing up, but because of the situation i probably won't now is paying for infant asked to her care, so the -- toddler care and the funding is there and i guess the argument from me is that we walked into this knowing that prop w would be the funding source for certain things. we supported that as a board. the people knew that went out to support prop w knew that and people that voted for the most part knew that also. i'm not
going to back away from that. we need to do what is right which is to fund what it was meant to fund, and the sales tax -- i feel guilty now that we passed the budget on something we didn't have but i asked questions before several months ago whether or not -- what if -- what if the sales tax does not pass what are we going to do? and the controller was saying there was a backup plan. yes, it's on reserve. so let's not panic yet. we do have a plan, and then in addition there's going to be additional revenue from the prop w anyways and so part of the plan really should be whether -- the question should be requested yes it's a budget but -- asked yes it's a
budget but many of the items budgeted around the homelessness and transportation could be eliminated because a lot is new. is that correct mr. controller? i don't want to put words into your mouth but my understanding is that there are new projects that were slated into the budget and we don't have the funding like -- you know, i would like to buy ten new cars and if i don't have the money at home i buy it so the question is that correct? >> i think generally that's correct supervisor. the majority of the funding in prop j was new money for transportation and homeless services. there is exceptions to that. the biggest single one being prop j was presumed to off set a significant of the resurfacing budget that was the case the year before. it's certainly true absent the board or the make taking other action
the budget is balanced by us reserving expenses equivalent to the loss of the sales tax thank you so much if no one does anything it remains balance. what that means per direction from the mayor or the board of directors the service won't go into effect and that's the choice fundamentally that is in front of the mayor and the board as you work to consider everything on the november ballot and what the loss of the sales tax means. >> thank you for that clarification. so given that when the argument that yes, there are competing interest and there is always going to be competing interests but in this case it was clear why we supported prop w. i won't back off of that. i hope my colleagues see the light with
that. this was clearly a mandate from the voters and by the way it's kind of nice even the state democratic party is giving this as a priority as a movement to give to the city colleges as a free institution for our students so i mean what i would like to propose is basically support this supplemental request and positive recommendation to the full board. >> okay. we have a motion by supervisor yee. do i have a second for that yet? >> i have a question. >> all right. why don't we go to supervisor tang. >> is chancellor lamb still here? sorry i meant to ask you this while you were up at the podium. just for the public's knowledge and
the supplemental and how much it costs of the online registration program and how much you're anticipating i think the first semester of the free tuition. >> right. so the money is actually a pass true that goes directly to the students. there is 1% as you can see up front that would help us set up the programming. we were initially looking at the programming on the front side cost $100,000 to rewrite the programming basically to implement the students and the changing coming in and then there would be about $200,000 we're hoping in regards to actually getting more financial aid staff on the initial part and help set up those processes in financial aid and also the processes in admissions and records, but the money except for that small percentage goes straight to the
students. in fact it doesn't even come to the college. basically what we do is defer the student fee at the beginning, the tuition fees and then we basically bill for those tuition fees so it's strictly paying for those student fees. for those students that qualify for free tuition and the governors waiver and falls below $24,000 for the family and pace up to thousand dollars for supplies and culinary knives and transportation vouchers if needed so it would come strictly towards the fees and books and supplies in that regard. it wouldn't come to the college. we are basically billinglet city for those student fees.
>> great. thank you so much for that break down. so i think that just mostly the question i wanted to throw out there so the public is aware how the funding is broken down for the $9 million. i think in terms of the comments that supervisor farrell and supervisor yee made i support all the comments made by each of you and why we're in this difficult predicament right now and i want to thank supervisor kim for her staff and ivy and everyone else pushing so hard for this program which i agree is a great one. my question which i know i raised with supervisor kim was just about the timing of it wanting to see the rebalancing plan we have for this current fiscal year which i believe we have scheduled at december 14 special budget and finance committee meeting for and so my ask is just whether we could just have
this decision come up forrous that december 14 meeting and have it in conjunction with the rebalancing plan and i want to emphasize as i discussed with you my commitment to this program but it's simply so we can have it m a larger context of all the different unfortunate trade offs we have to make for this fiscal year so that's my question. i know supervisor yee has a motion out there. again this does not take away from my commitment to this program at all. it's just to have the larger picture of our budget situation all at the same time so through the chair i don't know if supervisor yee is amenable to that. if it was pulled to the full board in december and a day before the balancing plan will be out so we would have the full picture by then. >> okay. thank you supervisor tang. actually i want to
irptject real quick and i agree this is a challenging discussion, no debt about it and i supervisor yee i appreciate the comments. i get it. and no one questioned the validity or importance of city college at all. again there competing interest here and we have talk about them and to the mayor's budget director supervisor yee mentioned net new spending here for homeless efforts. i forget the details about you could you talk about when we're talking about net new spending you know from my recollection this is getting people off the streets and into housing and shelters and other things and to me it's a massive priority and i don't want to dismiss that and it's not important but homelessness is one of the important issues
facing our city and i want to see resources spent against that. you can talk about what the net resources are. >> yes chair farrell. i wanted to clarify a couple of things from our perspective with the issues. the controller is correct and the budget included those amounts that were talked about and where the mayor is most concerned and an option available us to is take the spending, take the revenue, the revenue and expenditures go away and that is angoption available to policy makers. mayor's concern and meeting a lot with the new department head of the department of homelessness and supportive housing. there is $12 million in the current year's budget and looks like $20 million in the 17-18 budget. really of services that either have already started or about to start and up and running this
year so every math center and i know this board has passed legislation about keeping the existing naf center and new once and on to the sale tax as a source in the budget. rental subsidies that people are getting to stay off of the streets and additional support for shelters. basically -- i'm sorry, there is one other thing and the large thing i want to note. i'm sorry. i can't remember off the top of my head but basically meeting with the department. the 20 million is what i am concerned about and the mayor is asking again and if the funding goes away and we keep these things what will happen and we're hearing we can't address the homeless problem that the mayor and the board believes that we should and the controller mentioned before the projected deficits for upcoming year so the numbers
are moving around and almost finalized and assumes the current revenue mentioned and the funding in upcoming years because of property taxes and looking like it's 350 to 400 million over the next years and not that we're in a situation we need to do layoffs and drastic service cuts. it just means we need to be responsible and disciplined and make trade offs and from the mayor's perspective the homeless spending is where he's really concerned and i understand and i appreciate some of the comments around not pinning people against each other but the maybe has to make the decision to rebalance the budget and our plan is have a rebalancing plan before next year and prior to the hearing on the 14th and along with instructions and asking departments to make cuts and i agree and i want to appreciate having the larger
context with the one time decisions because they're related and it is really the same funding. >> okay. sorry supervisor tang did you have anything more on the comments and supervisor kim this is yours too. okay. supervisor kim. >> thank you. i just.ed respond to comments made and state before i make the comments i think everyone continues to make incredibly valid comments about our budget ones that we make every year. a couple of things to note. one this board of supervisors with the exception of chair farrell did vote on our intent to prioritize funding for city college of san francisco back on july 12 and i want to read that resolution again and i will read the last three clauses. whereas city college objective reclaim free higher education by eliminating enrollment fee are for students that live in san francisco or
work half-time in san francisco and ensuring it's accessible by supporting tuition covered by financial aid to off set other costs and textbooks and transportation up to a thousand dollar a year and be row ofled that the board of directors shall support the free city college proposal detailed here know to make city college of san francisco free and accessible for at minimum all san francisco residents by sukeering the funding needed to affect the proposal and for fall 2017 enrollment estimated up to be $13 million a year for full year free city college and resolved that the funding allocated for the purchase is contingent on the general fund and estimates and the real estate transfer tax. i bring this resolution again to the budget committee because as a made a commitment, the ten of us we would fund
city college with exception of of the factors except the real property tansfer tax and the one piece of and while i appreciate the conversation that we make a budgetary decision based on a myriad of needs we made a commitment in july to the city and county of san francisco andous residents we would make city college free if the real property tansfer tax passed and not both and while i appreciate that the real estate tax didn't pax and with the homeless cost we did that contingent on the sales tax passing and it didn't pass and i don't wish to not pay for those services we don't have the revenue for that and how can we move forward with the expenditures and call it a hole in the budget when we didn't
pass it. we had the funding expenditures done and we should take it out of the budget. that my my understanding voting for the budget in july. i don't see -- years we well discussions with the pension liability and labor negotiations coming up. that i understand we need a larger funding discussion but this is one off and we knead the commitment to fund -- made the commitment to fund city college and this group worked hard over the last three months and voters knew about and voters voted for and it's not easy being proposition w. we were literally 23 on a five page ballot and voters wouldn't have known to vote for this if people
didn't organize and door knock and phone bank and by the way there was no confusion for the voters and had a diploma and free city college on that measure so whatever you want to say is in the actual text of the real property tansfer tax it was very clear to the voters when they voted for this measure it's about making city college free. now on the secondary conversation about supplementals and whether we should vote for them i think that's a valid discussion. i'm not a huge fafn the supplemental process because i agree that supplementals should be largely for emergencies and we should do it -- that all other budget discussions happen in the budget year, but i as well as almost every single member of this board and one exception and provided a supplemental to the full board. every one of us except supervisor tang and we
may see we don't like it but we do it it's a question of what is an emergency and what is not? my intent moving forward -- this is the only second supplemental i have introduced is really based on the commitment that we made to our students, our city and passing free city college through proposition w and giving the city college administration the time that they need to set up a system through their financial aid office, through their portal and make city college free in august 2017 as we committed so committee i understand all of the points that were brought up. i am sympathetic to the concerns about our larger budget. i just want to remind this committee that we made commitment to fund city college regardless of factors except passage of proposition w and my view won't
change. we worked to make city college free and bring in new revenue to the city and there's going to be more revenue from proposition w than just making city college free and i continue to support proposition e as well. i know we have friends of the urban forest here and that commitment on july 1 sits with me still. the voters changed that amendment change and we have to fund that and also fund city college and i believe the timing should be now. if we're waiting two week frs a better budget picture we're saying we want more time to potentially not vote for free city college in two weeks and i just want to bring that forward and whether talking about a tiered enrollment program et cetera i just think that goes against the intent to prioritize the funding for free city college and this board passed this year and also
you know a lot of folks worked on this measure and they worked on it because ten members of the board committed to spending money they fought for to go to free city college and i want to make that commitment to this group here today at the full board next week so that is my plea but i do appreciate the discussion here. >> thank you supervisor kim and again let me say i appreciate your comments and thoughts around this. i entitle do and appreciate we have a difference of opinion. >> you. >> referenced it i was the one person writing against the resolution of something i support for this reason and we're false choices and we have competing interest and i appreciate the comments and a lot of people were involved in the campaign with prop w but it wasn't written for city college
and simply a transfer tax and i get from why it was written that way and dedicated and had to achieve 2/3 vote and it might have been difficult. that's fine. i have no objection to that but to say it's dedicate to the that is absolutely not true and it's irresponsible to talk in that manner and lastly if we have a $23 million hole in this year's budget and we're going to fund free city college to the tune of 9 million and supervisor kim's comment we're going to fund the trees to the tune of $13 million we're cutting homeless services to the tens of millions of dollars. i'm not ready to did that. i don't think it's the right decision. if people. to literally stand fort and say we should cut spending to get people off the streets and into shelter and housing that's their choice but i don't agree with that. i
think we need to have a discussion together and not in silos. with that supervisor tang. >> thank you. i just wanted to say lastly though i am glad you read the resolution and the clauses and i do stand by that. the reality is let's say it's the $23 million short fall for this current year and let's say for whatever reason we were decided most likely transportation and new spending that we based on budget on is going to be removed and homeless is still up in the air but at the end of the day if we strip out homelessness we have other supplementals that came through as the one introduced yesterday to the tune of $5 million so again i just have to emphasize that even though i have taken a harder line on supplementals in the past i am very willing to support a supplemental for this because i understand the timing and how it is that by april
there needs to be -- really march i guess there needs to be some level of commitment from the city to be able to fund free city college so i willing to waive that hard line in the past that i have taken on supplementals and i want to make that clear to you. for me it's again just to have that full picture and very well it could be the same decision, right. it could be absolutely yes we're going to support the $9 million but have it in the brownedder context again with the rebalancing plan i think is incredibly important at december 14 or the full board on december 13. >> okay. colleagues any further -- >> [inaudible] supervisor tang. so what -- you're asking for a delay, a continuance or what are you asking for? >> through the chair supervisor yee i was asking to have the supplemental back before us december 14 at our special budget and finance committee meeting whether we have the
rebalancing plan and budget instructions in front of us, and it doesn't necessarily mean i'm going to waiver from my commitment to free city college. it just means we have all of the information, all of the different aspects of our current year deficit in front of us. >> that also means that we wouldn't be able to pass this out of the board -- i mean for the board to look at it -- >> mid-january. >> with a new board. >> but again -- through the chair as long as we can get to them i think by march it sounds like. >> well, i can't speak for the chancellor but when you create a program and i thought i heard her say she needs staffing to
create the program. you're not going to start creating a program until you get the funding and even though with the march date that she gave it's a date when students start enrolling. you need to do the program before that so it's not waiting until march is my concern -- >> perhaps through the chair maybe ask the chancellor how terms in timeline wise we need to gear this up. i am talking about a couple weeks difference but obviously i want to hear from the chancellor. >> so the programming just to actually get where students can register in way will take four to six weeks so registration starts the last week in march if we look at last year so you start backing that up. march, february -- that doesn't give
testing time so i would drop dead for the fall is january 15 otherwise pushing it back to the spring enrollment for spring of 2018. >> and that's i think that's my concern is cutting it very close considering the first mighting on a sunday and not bring it up and waiting you're abutting into that zone where it may not happen. . >> so i guess through the chair to supervisor tang i hope you can consider these timelines where it might want make as much sense to wait until the 14th.
that would make it almost -- when the 20th or something like that? i don't know which meeting it would be. >> yeah, i am just looking at the calendar right now and looks like i want to get it confirmed we don't have a january 3 board meeting. >> correct. >> so we have one on the tenth and the 17th. >> the tenth and the 24th because of holiday on the 17th or the 16th. >> so are we going to have two then on the eighth and the ten? >> city attorney john gibner. >> the board hasn't adopted the calendar yet and could call a special meeting at any point but anticipating you won't have a meeting on the 17th. >> i appreciate this conversation because i didn't know about the january 15 deadline until literally now so
i could see this i mean i could see this being to the full board by december 13 already so i think at this point i am okay sending it without recommendation, not because i don't support the supplemental but want the information with the rebalancing accompanying the discussion. >> supervisor tang is that a motion to send it next week or the week after on the 13th to the full board? >> continue to next week. come to the full board by the 13th. >> to the 13th. >> sorry. continue to the next week so it get to the full board by the 13th. >> or can you make a motion to go to the full board on the 13th -- [inaudible] [off mic] >> i mean city attorney's office we can make a motion to send something to the full board
meeting on the 13th. >> okay. >> okay. so just clarify so end of a long meeting and i appreciate everyone's dedication and patience here so motion to send item 13 forward without recommendation to the full board of directors for the december 13 board of directors meeting and supervisor kim does that work from your perspective? >> [inaudible] [off mic] >> okay. >> i will rescind my motion. >> supervisor tang made a motion. >> and i will second it. >> seconded by supervisor yee and take that without objection. [gavel] madam clerk do we have any further business before us? >> there is no further business. >> thanks everyone. we're adjourned. [gavel]
>> good morning, everyone thank you all for joining us today today, we're realizing the distance manufacturers and a culmination of a year of work we partnered with 24 individuals our sdains team to provide guidance for the prodding project as we look for a way for san francisco to be a leader in the growing sector advanced industry what is is that it is anything that involves technology or
innovations to improve the process or products we're making the benefits of the manufacturing is makes manufacturing more efficient and cleaner and safer for our workers the playbooks look at ways for san francisco to remain at the forefront the recommendation cover 3 main strategies regional collections to build an eco system for the industry, opportunities to strengthen infrastructure to support this industry and workforce opportunity to assure we are the leaders in goods and with blew collar jobs the jobs in manufacturers create a pathway to the middle-income i'd like to introduce mayor ed lee our number one supporter of our manufacturing industry here in san francisco. >> (clapping.) >> thank you laurel for that
introduction it is great to be in bayview supervisor cowen for joining us this morning as well i know she's a great admire of local administrative codes quite frankly most of those jobs can be in her district you it to michael for inviting us and thank you to the gap team that is here as well their really a homegrown company here and really the best example of what we're trying to do with the advanced industry playbook first of all, we have to understand what manufacturing see everyone thinks i'm the mayor of city dealing with tech and innovation and bio logical sciences that's not true in fact, besides tourism technology and bio sciences manufacturing has been a very steady job creator in san
francisco a lot of people don't know that you look at outside and don't see the activities i love did noise this noise means people are making things that's why sfmade and the office of civic innovation call got together to put this playbook together so the public can besides the role of manufacturing in san francisco one, if we understand it we as the board and city and the mayor wouldn't make mistakes down the road to compliment and support this one and 20 job company that has been here for almost 50 years and many other local manufacturing jobs that are created if we understand it we understand the blend that
technology has we're supportive have to advance this manufacturing if we understand that we understand the international market to bring those priorities all over the world as part of their apparel design one of the best selling brand for san francisco this is what the playbook is all about i'm enthusiastic about the sector of our entry because you don't need a 4-year degree but you need training and that's one of the objectives of this playbook how the city supports the kind of training these employees are so had in order to be great at their jobs and use of the he overlay how do we understand the market that makes sure we have a market to understands how wonderful and
provision made those products are how does it blend with the apparel with beiges or beverages with manufacturers with beverages we make all kinds of things in san francisco i want to make sure that people support the playbook the deeper understanding of administrative reviews here and never forgot for every manufacturing jobs that is the multiple power of 2 1/2 jobs created here sfmade knows that we got to have other people understand that and then the biggest thing i want people to really be able to do is support our local manufacturing by buying things that are made in san francisco as we approach the holiday season this is the best time to suggest to everybody buy local it is really going to help our
manufacturers to sustain themselves and if we buy local understand the products that are made are caused to be made in san francisco or the bay area we'll support our local manufacturers that much more we have two programs i want to make sure that people understand that is buy local program and also sf bids connection our office work in tandem between big businesses and small businesses to support each other the large corporation shift 5 to 10 percent of buying power into local organized companies we'll have this much stronger base in san francisco the buy local means we shop and dine in the 49 annette and i know we'll spent a lot of time we have great restaurant great
stores, great outlets in san francisco to buy from you don't need to go online and buy other things from foreign places but have all the products made in manufacturing design with a san francisco label i want to make sure people understand that makes sure we understand the playbook and want to say thank you, thank you, thank you to the over 70 people that formed in playbook took a lot of interviews on the international and local level to understand what is going on here and when we say that we're going to support our local manufacturing places with more production, distribution, and repair spaces we want to know we're doing it in the right way we don't need empty warehouses to get to san francisco we need vientd job creating spaces like
here in cannabis dispensary caner america that is 50 years in the making when you understand what they had to do for the manufacturing you'll know they're making the same quality products in a precise way to be sold all over the world we need an international expletive in other words, to survive and do better it will compliment our strength in tourism and, etc. everyone thank you for coming here and being informed about the advanced manufacturing playbook and thank you for supporting cannabis dispensary can and gap and those that will sell the sfmade pursuits good morning, everyone. >> (clapping.) >> we're now going to her from supervisor cowen sfropg advocate
for our industrial jobs and supervisor at the district 10 we're looking to spend. >> (clapping.) >> good morning, everyone in the mayors introduction he earned the title of the number one fan of industrial work in spaces that makes me number 2 march 3 next to kate who knows but i'm excited to be here and thank you to all of you thank you and recognize the leadership of the mayor's office of economic workforce development we're working very, very hard to be inclusive and thought to make sure the policies are representing and recognizing and supporting small businesses in san francisco not leaving out the manufacturing industry i think that is very important to call out when you think about the growth of the manufacturing industry the instructors that is retiring locally that is bringing diversity racial
diversity and parity to the entire workforce, of course, i need to recognize the office of civic innovation and my friend from the sgin kate who to say the executive director and head of sfmade she has an incredible vision i think for the maker industry period in san francisco been a tremendous amount of work and diving in we're grateful and as you can see the fruit of your labor about 10 years if i'm not mistaken around that time that at the helm bringing about more manufacturing jokes for those of you who don't know i'm the maid of the san franciscan born and raised not far under the bayview and been a considerable amount of time to fight for pdr space pdr space in this very conscious city for economic development isn't housing crisis has been
the first type of space that has been cannibalized by development and with the mayor's office and with sfmade help we have been able to i think single-handedly pushed back r pushed back to protect pdr space to make sure that san francisco economy will thrive not everyone will afford a university or get a degree but were make sure we have jobs that are available for everyone at different education backgrounds to, sir can congratulations i know that - an incredible copy 50 years around and gap has been around anymore but i'm looking to getting a
tour and if i see a belt or bracelet or something i'll put it on my tab no free rides just put it on my tabby want to talk a little bit about the advanced team this is a grew up of 25 sector businesses that got together to provide their insight on exactly what the industry needs to elevate and advance the industry and to begin to understand begin to understand how san francisco, california position itself to be a leader in this particular growing be sector now a series even if recognitions what that made out of the workshop we're working on the first recommendation and it is to begin to organize a regional manufacturing which will reach out to from time to time and old
and san jose rainwater this month we're happy to share the information with you when the event becomes to fruition but i want to again, thank you i'm grateful i don't know if anyone if i'm the only one that was unaware of advanced manufacturing s a simple concept you take old world and add technology to it that increasing the productivity that is incredibly important when you think about north silicon valley we're we should be industry leaders thank you to all the partners that makes us to be the leader and mayor ed lee congratulations this is a quite an accomplishment and a feather in your cap thank you. >> (clapping.) >> well, good morning and thank
you supervisor cowen and mayor ed lee for your remarks and leadership i'm kate ceo of sfmade and for those of you who don't know we have the city's nonprofit partner working across the city to support and sustain and help to keep local manufacturers like, sir can rising in the city our network of local manufacturing totals 6 hundred companies broadly raging be like, sir can and the broosters to a whole range of early stage makers and fueled kinds of companies from jewelry to granola to products that are probably more what we imagine like the advanced manufacturing like a grown but today, i really want to comment on i think supervisor cowen you gave me the lead in we think about advanced manufacturing in this city and i
do have to the opportunities now too often spent a lot of time in cities across the country that look at san francisco as a role model for how to knit together literally and figuratively over world craft we think about sue or metalworking my gathers was do to billing low where i came from all over the place advanced manufacturing we see the articles and pictures of drone or robots at the end of the day we're most cities i will august including that one finds the special combination of the two in doing exactly what, sir can has done not just but the products so much opportunity in connecting together those new kinds of manufacturing technologies and some of them
are pretty straightforward this i'm assuming michael was made with a lazer current a straightforward kind of technology you can have our young con or daughter learn how to use one at soft tech in san francisco but something that bigger companies like, sir can use to help to make their process more efficient at the end of the day when you add technology with people it is not instead of people that is the two together that's what makes the magic happen and that's where i see san francisco and others see san francisco be able to lead the way and demonstrate those those two together work with that, my heartfelt thanks to the mayors leadership and supervisor cowen and her colleagues leadership on everything from land use to providing more visibility to
those kinds of companies thank you to the corporate companies like the gaps and others from san francisco may not produce in the city any longer than but made investment and decision that help to drive the business of the, sir can and more importantly i want to thank you the team that makes, sir can as you may know from us as/78 their 12 of us i couldn't do anything without my team and want martin is the driver the primary author of that book our manufacturing fellow it is transitioning into the initiative we are launching with mayor ed lee and the mayors of from time to time, oakland and san jose and pro transacted an initiative called the urban manufacturing initiative that
will dwrief important jobs across the region in san francisco over the next 3 years the kickoff to that is actually on november 17th right here at the pier 70 we would like to see many of you here he wanted to end my little piece with to thank you for those who work at, sir can there is quite a few of you standing here you're the ones that make it happen all the rest is theizing on the cake it is about you guys and any thank you for investing and be able part of this with that, i'd like to introduce the ceo of, sir can michael sanders thank you kate and welcome mayor ed lee and supervisor cowen and sfmade and the special customer gap we are honored to have you this is a special moment for, sir can and the communities back
in 1967 the founder of this company started selling small leather good ideas on hate street and he invested along with his partner with technology and infrastructure to build it wonderful one plus thousand dollars manufacturing facility we're proud we have the largest leather good ideas facility in the united states we're the largest factory here in san francisco and proud to be in the bayview many years served consumers by the gaps for 45 years and nordstrom and others your goal to continue to expand and create jobs isn't usa by expanding to huge channels what makes many company special are our employees one and 20 employees in the factory and over 40
employees up, huh? our afternoon tenure over 18 years we're incredibly proud of that. >> (clapping.) >> we pride ourselves in training employees and providing benefits and opportunity to grow and i want to thank everyone here and the employees for, sir can for making this company special so thank you. >> (clapping.) >> and with that i'd like to introduce you to one of our is there any public comment employees tammy, tammy. >> (clapping.) >> i think good high good morning, everyone my name is tammy long i've worked here for 17 years my husband worked here for 24 years we both like working for, sir
>> shop and dine the 49 promotes local businesses and changes san franciscans to do their shopping and dooipg within the 49 square miles by supporting local services within the neighborhood we help san francisco remain unique, successful and vibrant so where will you shop and dine the 49 hi in my mind a ms. medina . we
ladies and gentlemen to the delayed regular meeting for november 28th, 2016 of the san francisco ethics commission. i will first call the roll. vice-chair keane. >> here. >> commissioner chiu. >> here. >> commissioner hayon has been excused due to illness. and we are expecting commissioner kopp to arrive shortly. and before calling for
public comment, i want for the record to acknowledge that all commissioners received a cookie, which i understand is from the friends of ethics celebrating the passage of proposition t and i'll have to check with the city attorney as to whether or not that gift of a cookie has to be reported on our form 700? it doesn't? all right, good . thank you. calling item no. 2 on the agenda. public comment on matters appearing or not appearing on the agenda. let me just say, thank you to the friends of ethics for their support of proposition t, and thank you for the cookie. it's very nice. i don't know about the $100 bill that is inside mine
though [laughter ]. i didn't get $100. >> good evening. [ inaudible ] okay. good evening, david pelpal, interesting to hear about the cookie, was it a sugar cookie? a couple of quick things, i. 4 which was withdrawn from the agenda i'm just wondering if the item was just continued for a future meeting? >> director pelham, can you explain. >> yes, to clarify the request for the waiver was withdrawn along with the item. >> got it. and the staff report --
used an old templet and it was a sarif font -- the other general item i wanted to call to your attention, some of the charts on item 5 and the executive director's report have different -- it appears to be they in different colors or different some things. if there is a way to convey that information better, if not in color, that would be helpful. because i was trying to figure it out. the particulars weren't that important to me, but may be important to others, but otherwise the information was great. >> thank you, any other public comment? >> hello larry bush on behalf of friends of ethics. general comment that you may touch in later reports in looking over the campaign finance reports for the last november election, there are
a flush of independent expenditure committees that appear to be cycling money back and forth between earth and found san franciscos for friends that work and friends of the -- protect san francisco, san franciscans against wasteful spending progress san francisco and several other better known long-lasting groups like spur and sf forward, where they would have some of the same consultants. in some cases they also had the same principal officer, and they often had the same donor and sometimes money would go from one committee to another committee to a third committee. so the whole issue of tracking the money gets very convoluted. i was tempted to get butcher paper and a magic marker to follow it, but i thought i would ask if you all would please do that as a public service. thank you. >> thank you.
>> i won a case at the state court of appeal. i didn't have a lawyer. it was just me and i had no one to even look over the paperwork. and this had to do with a woman i didn't know. there was no basis for the filing. there was no evidence. i was not properly served and my due-process rights were violated and they charged after the wrong statute and this woman's name is barbara sklar, a commissioner with the arts commission. there is very little paperwork on her. she claims to have served under five mayors, but there is no record of that anywhere. for me it was very distressing to have these malicious charges put on me. i would say it took a year of mine time. i spent a lot of time in the law library myself and did everything on my own, but
i'm sure it cost the city a lot of money. and there was no investigation at all. and i think that it was a waste of time. it was a malicious filing and it was meant to keep me out of 401 van ness avenue and for an artist prevented from a building that is primarily for the arts, that was a very -- i still can't make sense out of it. and i was hoping that by coming here, talking about it, it would make it less surreal for me. it was awful. i wouldn't wish it on anyone. >> thank you. any other public comment? i'll turn to agenda item 3. discussion and possible action on draft minutes for the commission's october 17th, 2016 special meeting. any commissioners have any
additions, corrections? >> move approval. >> second. >> any public comment? on the draft minutes of the october 17th special meeting? i'll call the question, all those in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion -- minutes are adopted 3-0. and the record will reflect that commissioner kopp has just arrived fortunately as we move into the more substantive part of our agenda. as the record reflects item no. 4 was withdrawn. no. 5, discussion of enforcement program -- good evening. >> good evening, mr. chairman, excuse me for my lateness. >> discussion of
enforcement report and highlighted various programmatic issues and activities of the commission's enforcement division, and i would ask ms. blome, if you would give us a little introduction, and discussion concerning all right no. 5. >> thank you, chair, i will turn it over to deputy director, director of enforcement and legal affairs jessica blome. >> good evening, commissioners. in the enforcement report this month i included a small synopsis of the fairly complicated sunshine ordinance regulations for handling matter s under the sunshine ordinance this commission passed several years ago. there are several items on the agenda tonight that deal with the sunshine ordinance and i wanted to give you some context before launching into those matters. just briefly to summarize what i have
written, the first tract is chapter 2 referral. those matters are matters that the sunshine ordinance task force has already considered and they are already looked at the factual matter, considered the matter at a hearing, usually before committee and again before the full task force and issued some sort of order and determination for what they think mazhappened. has happened and an example of that was the task force considered the evidence and considered that matter over for referral. none of the matters on the agenda are task force referrals, but i thought i would include it so you can see the difference between the two. the chapter 3 referrals are matters that the commission ostensibly has authority to hear as an original matter. so you have the original jurisdiction to hear the matters and the first type of chapter 3 matters are where
the complaint is alleging willful violation by the [sao-urb/] ordinance by department head and the second is where the task force has issues an order and sometime has gone by and neither the city attorney or district attorney has enforced that order despite being asked to do so. at that point you could take up the matter as a matter of original jurisdiction. and then the third is when staff initiates a complaint for violation of the sunshine ordinance on its own motion basically. on its own initiation. the first two subjects under that tract are clearly articulated in the sunshine ordinance itself and the third staff-initiated is one of the things that we'll look at when we look at sunshine ordinance regulations. in the it involves a matter where there is an allegation that an elected official or department head has
committed a woeful violation of sunshine ordinance we don't find that staff has the authority to launch an investigation into any kind of violation of the sunshine ordinance. those matters should really go before the sunshine ordinance task force first. nevertheless those are the types of matters that we have tonight. and staff over the last several months has initiated its own investigations into various complaints. and we're presenting recommendations and reports to you on those as separate agenda items later. as you know, the available relief for anybody who has a sunshine ordinance complaint before the task force is the same whether under chapter 2 or 3. -- i'm sorry, did somebody say something? [ inaudible ]. i can't hear, you can order the respondent to cease and desist violation or produce the records and you ask the executive
director to post a finding of violation of sunshine ordinance or ask the executive director to show warning letter to the respondent and authority of the violation. that is really the extent of our authority with violation of the sunshine ordinance. any questions on that portion of the report? >> do commissioners have any questions? i'm reading your memorandum. i had a number of questions in the second paragraph under "chapter 2 referrals." you say upon receipt of these referrals, staff reviews the sotf's findings, evidence and order. staff may then prepare a memorandum for the commission's consideration. if we believe further analysis would prove beneficial -- what does the
staff do if it doesn't think it needs further analysis? >> it's just a pass-through referral. i think most of the referrals you have received from the task force have been pass-through referrals where you only receive the task force's order and the party's responses to the order and staff stays out of it. >> okay. >> i think that was the original contemplatation of chapter 2, but in the steve matter the facts were so confusing that staff thought it should weigh-in to sort of help the public and the commission along thanks. >> the remainder of the report is our general update we give every month. you'll note that our official complaint total is up to 30 now. we initiated a number of complaints during the election season. there will likely be more to come as a result of complaints filed with us over the election season. they are under preliminary
review now, so you'll also note that the numbers of matters in preliminary review has gone up. i don't have the chart -- >> 87 matters are now in preliminary review. >> thank you. at the end the matters with -- sorry the matters under preliminary review and the bureau of delinquent review matters which they are diligently complecting collecting for us and we commend them for their great job. >> commissioner chiu? >> jessica, in terms of preliminary review, is it only the executive director who has the authority to make a determination whether or not a potential violation has occurred? >> yes. the executive director has to determine whether we have reason to believe a violation has occurred. >> okay.
>> so after we go through the complaint, we just make an assessment of whether or not it's within our jurisdiction or whether it merits further investigation? if it merits further investigation we send to the city attorney and district attorney and once it is it's locked as a formal complaint. >> so there would be no possibility of delegating that review or sharing some of the workload? ? >> as a practical matter, the staff, all of the investigations in enforcement programs assist in that review and we present the executive director with a memorandum and recommendation. >> mr. chairman. >> commissioner kopp. >> i'm looking at page 4. the report active bureau of
delinquentent revenue referrals, which five were identified and two against the same -- well, the same case, i guess. jackson, chris jackson, same case. >> different cases. he ran for election twice. >> different cases, all right. one of them, and one only a year-ago was reduced to judgment. do you get a report from the tax collector on what he is doing about collecting the judgment? >> we don't get regular updates, but when we inquire, they send us updates. our most recent update on this particular judgment was just within the last four weeks, and they have attempted to collect, but mr. jackson doesn't have any assets in the city. >> how have they tried to collect? >> they did not go into details about how. >> ask if they conducted
an order of examination? >> okay. >> and ask them also, through the chair, with such request, what have they done on which committee to elect norman for supervisor? that is a referral going on a year-and-a-half. same thing with bob squeri for district 7 and same thing with isabelle and the second case of course is september 26th of this year. i'd like to know what they are actually doing. >> sure. >> and then the second part of the question, same subject-matter as my first
meeting, we acted to penalize lynette sweet and that is not on here. is that because it hasn't been referred for collection? >> no. she has -- it's not -- the order isn't final for 30 days and she has some period of time after that to pay. i couldn't tell you how much. >> all right. >> but to at >> if i recall the total is 90 days post-order. >> >> give me that information, informally or otherwise. >> sure. >> the other type of question i have is on page 3, you summarize the type of complaints. but then on page -- i guess it's attachment 1, so it's got "1" under it.
there are different words used to describe age of matters in preliminary review as of november 15. for example, i don't get it -- well,. i see what you mean. >> well, most of them do, i guess. i don't know. you've got -- maybe i guess they ared same or different word. >> for the purposes of table 1 of the report, governmental ethics being things like having political activity on city property or something like that. a conflict of interest would be a direct and financial
interest in some activity that was happening. but for the purposes of the table, they have never been broken out that way and we didn't want to make the data -- we wanted to make the data look like what you normally seen and ethics include conflict of interest and governmental ethics activity. >> i have never seen it. thanks. >> any other commissioner comments? i'll call for public comment on agenda item no. 5. unfortunately the closed captioning isn't working. i have a hearing issue, but when discussing what i thought were the findings of the sunshine ordinance task force reviewing them and making sure they are supported by what was
presented to them, and the committees there, by the task force. in any case, i understood that if you get a case that is referred from the task force, you have to hear it in a show-cause hearing. and a show-cause hearing, as i understand it, the respondent has the burden of establishing that whatever the complaint was it doesn't -- there is no merit to it. what i heard was that the staff here is going to evaluate the task force findings, which include at least two or three meetings of the full task force, and at least two meetings of a committee of the task force.
and since the show-cause hearing is based on what the task force produces, i don't think it's appropriate for your staff to second-guess the task force, if that is what is happening. >> thank you. any other public comment? on agenda item 5? >> david pilpel. i was very interested in this item and i appreciate the summary that jessica provided. i do recall there was a difference between the chapter 2 referral and chapter 3 referral or matter, and it did have to do with whether the burden was shifted. so i'm sure staff can talk about that and the last version of the regs were adopted in 2013 as indicated. i believe there wass a follow-up hearing in the fall of 2013 and there was discussion about the
handling of referrals from the task force and if i recall correctly there was a memo from then deputy director -- remind me of the former deputy director -- menardi to -- i think to the task force that memorialized the discussion that the commission had had in that meeting. as i say i think it was in the fall of 2013 and this memo was late 2013, 2014 and i'm sure you can find that and i think it would have clarified some of the understandings, but it did not go back and change the regs. there was a determination at that time and i don't know if you found that in going through stuff. >> yes. >> so i did remember it correctly? >> yes. >> so one of the things that i was concerned about, the regs sort of contemplate and the memo contemplates and
tonight's agenda includes a number of sunshine ordinance complaints filed directly with the commission. there have been a couple of instances of that happening over time. i have never been a fan of that. i am of the belief that the sunshine ordinance really provides for complaints about violations of the ordinance to be routed to the task force, and that is the place to hear complaints. whether they handle them properly or not? if there is a referral from the task force, it comes before the commission, but this idea of having two venues that complainants can go to either the task force or commissioner or both potentially under the same underlying facts is troubling. i don't think that was the intent. i don't know if you ever asked the city attorney for an opinion on the ordinance? it's a little vague, admittedly on this 40 days, if no enforcement -- if no enforcement action is taken.
but i do think that relates to enforcement of an order by the task force. and that is something that is kind of glossed over here. so this whole question of original jurisdiction, i think, is important. the amount of detail that is here about complaints, preliminary and formal, is very helpful. as i have said before, we can talk about bdr another time and i think the questions from commissioner kopp were right-on >> commissioner kopp has a question you may want to ask. >> well, i'm ask the city attorney: what is that the sunshine ordinance task force has the legal power to do that the ethics commission doesn't? >> the task force -- the task force basically issues orders of determination, which are then referred to ethics, but in terms of what
the task force can itself impose? the answer is simply referring to the ethics commission. >> no, that is not my question. what subject-matter? >> oh, the subject-matter? >> does the sunshine ordinance task force have legal jurisdiction over, which the ethics commission does not? >> none. it's basically -- the sunshine ordinance task force has jurisdiction exclusively over sunshine violations -- sunshine ordinance violations, but there is nothing -- >> sunshine means what? open meetings versus closed meetings? >> right. so the sunshine ordinance was enacted by an act that amended in chapter 67 of the administrative code.
. what year was it enacted? >> 1993. >> judge kopp, if i could interject? i don't want to disagree with the city attorney's office, but the sunshine ordinance task force does not appear to have jurisdiction over woeful violation by. all other violations of the sunshine ordinance, including open meetings and public records act and responses is with the sunshine ordinance task force in terms of investigation. >> to the exclusion of the ethics commission. >> the language would suggest that and the ethics commission is to handle the enforcement of orders issued by the task force. so if you think of yourselves as the enforcement authority for another body that does the evidentiary inquiry and investigation and makes the order, that is how the
ordinance is setup right now. >> i think of myself as trying for the taxpayers to avoid duplication. but i have to do more studying. >> if i could respond to something mr. pilpel said? i did include and -- i did not include in my verbal -- i'm sorry, what? i did not include in my verbal summary, but i did include in my written summary that the respondent bears the burden of burden of proof in sunshine ordinance task force referrals to demonstrate he did not violate the law and i will add that staff's only role in a task force referral is to clarify or help explain the authority, because it's so confusing.
we wouldn't interfere with the factual findings. >> thank you, i'm happy to discuss more -- >> -- i just wanted to say thank you and i'm happy to discuss further with jessica this issue. >> thank you. any other public comment on agenda item no. 5. >> public comment on agenda item no. 5, the reason why a member of the public might make a sunshine referral directly to the ethics commission as opposed to the task force is because of the make-up of the task force. while david pilpel did not address himself as a member of the public he was on the task force for quite a long period of time. and a lot of the things he did were illegal, and they were ethically wrong and there were a number of people, including myself, who came to the ethics commission because they did not feel that their complaints were heard fairly. >> and who are you?
>> ann treboux. >> hearing no other comments, no other questions by the commission, we'll turn to agenda item no. 6. which is discussion and possible action on staff's report and recommendation for handsling ethics commission complaint no. 03160621. san francisco urban forest coalition versus john rahaim and sarah jones and mr. grossman, i believe that is subject to your comment. >> well, i understand i
have ten minutes actually. is that right? >> correct. >> i won't have ten minutes' to say and actually i was going to begin my comments differently until i heard this last discussion. i'm probably one of the few people that was engaged directly with mr. st. croix in drafting the regulations that ultimately were adopted. he didn't follow many of the recommendations of the people on the task force that were interested, and decided to do things his way. but i did discuss the issue of the burden of burden of proof directly with a couple of the then commissioners and they felt that was the best way to go, rather than just enforcing, which is what the sunshine ordinance says. my complaint is a little
different. but i think in background, i even wonder whether any of the staff that have come aboard recently have actually been to the task force meetings? because so much of their business could, and possibly should be driven by what the task force does. the complaints that are filed directly with the commission are very limited to department heads and elected officials. and the bulk, i'm sure, of what you get from the task force involves other people. i will try to make this short and direct it to the single issue raised by the complaint, which is the planning department's violation of the sunshine ordinance by its failure to
provide public access to information that planning should have input into the two indices it creates to provide the public with public information. in its statutory role under ceqa, and the san francisco administrative code. i think this goes further to my point about the staff's orientation about public access. california has in its constitution the right of public access. it's constitutional here. it's not a statute. it's not some board issuing a rule. and what it says actually of an important part for our discussion is that a statute court rule or other authority, including those that affect on the effective date of this subdivision shall be broadly construed if
it furthers the people's right of access, and narrowly construed if it limits the right of access. so when you construe 6729, that is the way it has to be construed. but this complaint is not about the complainant not receiving copies of public records sought under a separate and different records request. this is a complaint about the public using its access to look at the information at the heart of the planning department's responsibility as the gatekeeper for ceqa. it's a state and city environmental laws. if you are not familiar with ceqa, you should know it affects almost everything that planning touchs from reviewing its own and other initiated legislation to
review of small projects sought to be built in the city. so if they want to completely tear up geary boulevard to set in some red bus lanes, it's got to go through ceqa. and it's got to be reviewed by an agency and in san francisco it would be the planning department, unless -- i could go into that, but i won't. it's the most important environmental review that there can be. so the complaint is really about the planning department's to provide the path for that information, which is mandated by section 6729. it's not about the records that might have been identified if the planning department had fully complied with 6729 of the ordinance, which it has not. setting up the index doesn't
provide any information. it just provides the structure for the information. and as we know under the sunshine ordinance, the content of any public record is public information, and it is accessible to the public. so the complaint is strictly focused on their delivered violation 6729. now that provision has been in effect at least since the year 2000. 16 years. the scope and level of planning's role and responsibility under ceqa and the city's administrative code has to be understood to comprehend the significance of planning. this environmental group
deals with ceqa and the city administrative code. they have 13 separate subgroups, divided into various aspects of the kind of review required of the focus and has a staff of probably more than 30 people. all of this is happening at the same time, because that is all they do. so you figure out the number of ceqa-related reviews since this group was setup probably is -- it's staggering. it's probably thousands. so how can a member of the public, like me, quickly determine when and whether there was a ceqa review of a particular public or private project? or of legislation? without accessing the indices into which planning should have inputted the
information and maintained it for all of these years? certainly since 6729 became law, which i think it was expanded in the year 2000 and the indexs were put in place by planning filing with the city administration. and the idea that this by creating the indices they have complied, which is what the report says nonsense. it's not the setting up of the indices, but the information that should have been put in there all of these years. i know, because i have asked for ceqa reviews, and what i get is a single sheet of paper, and that is the end of it. where is the file? well, we really don't keep notes. i'm talking about the reviewer. we don't keep notes. we don't show the amount of time we spent, you know? it's basically an empty well.
and i'm talking about when they review legislation. i'm not just talking about a 3-story walk-up. i'm talking about the better streets plan amendment, which was almost 200 pages long. the one-page report was, "it's exempt." period. no notes, nothing to show how much time was spent reviewing it? nothing. so in my view, they don't have any excuses, or any rationales for their failure to comply. the fact is that once i filed the complaint, they should have gotten right on it, but here we are. what? i filed it in april, may, june, july, august, september, october, november, seven months later, nothing. nothing. >> can i interrupt? >> yes. >> how did they get right
on it if they don't have records? how do they get right on it? as i understand your complaint, it's based on the fact that they don't keep notes. how do they get right on it? what are they going to do? >> they don't keep notes and they don't keep records of their time. occasionally what you will see is is an email. i made about three or four records requests dealing with specific legislation, and recently with the geary avenue rapid transit project, if i only have 20 seconds left? >> i moved whatever-- >> anyway, the main thing is, i think, in my response to the report, i made it clear that i don't get how they could miss the issue?
how could you miss the issue? i don't understand that. there is only one question: you either input the information, and make it accessible, or you don't. and they haven't. >> mr. grossman, part of the problem i have is that i don't know what you are saying that they should have produced for you that they don't -- that they didn't -- that they do have? >> it's not a question -- this is not a records request. my request to them was to identify the records that they have put into the system. into these two indices. i didn't ask for any. i made two records request. one was a general request related to the amendment to the better streets plan and i got a ton of stuff, hundreds, they say. it might have been hundreds. i'm not sure.
i made a special request in an immediate disclosure request and it's right in the complaint. i talked about 6729. i didn't talk about where are my records? which would be 6721. i'm just trying to understand, you say they produced a hundred or whatever it was in response to your request. what is it that they didn't produce? >> they didn't produce any evidence that they had started to fill up the two indices. >> online, you mean? >> it's hard to separate the record from the information. but that is really what it is. in the database it's just information. it's not the record itself. so they should have that information, public information, in these two indices.
why else create them? you know? it's like any database. i could create a database on excel that allows for all of this and never fill it any of the blanks. that is what this complaint was about. >> well, if i may? it sounds like to me -- >> 6729 requires them -- >> it sounds to me, mr. grossman, that -- either they don't make notes as they look at the ceqa statutes, and they look at the ceqa regulations, or if they do, they toss them. and what you are trying to do is make them a, keep notes on what they looked at, what statutes, what regulations, and b, that they make notes, keep the notes. isn't that it? >> and make it accessible.
if they do 100 ceqa reviews a year and it's probably closer to a thousand, how do they keep track of them? how does the public know which ones they have done or not? >> what was in the hundreds of pages you got? >> for the first request? >> yes. >> well, it was everything. it was the emails that were sent, among the planners, who were rewriting the better streets plan through this amendment. >> so it wasn't strictly on ceqa? >> it wasn't on ceqa. >> thank you. >> if they do a ceqa review, it should have been in there, but they did not do a full review. they exempted it under the exemption provision that they use indiscriminately.
i'm not a ceqa expert, but it's very complicated stuff. >> commissioner keane. >> mr. grossman, i'm also having trouble with what you are indicating is wrong with this organization in terms of some of the things you said. so let me just see if i can specifically go to one of the things that you said. that you were dealing with that i'm certainly familiar with and have some concerns about as well. you are talking about the redlining aspect of geary boulevard? >> yes. >> and this group, this organization would have the authority to go ahead and look to see whether or not that is something that is properly should be done in terms of the bus lanes and all of that? that is a large thing in our city. this is a group that -- and you said that in regard to your contact with this group, in regard to a matter like that, that they would have
dealt with. and you asked them, well, what did you do with it? they told you, well we don't keep any files and we have nothing to tell you as to how we arrived at whatever decision we arrived at? am i accurately summarizing what you said on that issue? >> that is actually a little more complicated. the geary project as they call it, brt, bus lane project. >> what is that they wouldn't have a file on? you said generally -- wait a minute -- this general statement that when you addressed them for various things, on anything, they had told you we have no files. this is what we did, but we have no idea -- how we got that. is that true? >> well, it's partially true. i gave a poor example, because with the geary
street project, actually the planning department was hired by sf -- transit authority to do the eir. eis review. that was all done under contract. so it would not necessarily fall within this. but the better streets plan amendment clearly did and was clearly all planning. they wrote the law. and they got -- i think president of the board to introduce it. they had their hands all over it and then -- if you want to really just drill-down on it, that had an environmental negative to it, because what it did was it eliminated
street tree plantings in many situations. they gave -- the planning code had a provision if you did certain things, build a new building, put in a garage, whatever, you had to put in a street tree. and if you didn't, then you had to pay an in-lieu fee in place of it. what the amendment to the better streets plan did, it changed the way that operated and gave the project developer a credit, if there was an existing tree there. which meant that they could be losing 100, 200, 300 treess a year and they didn't even consider that an environmental issue and we know how important street trees are, the urban forest. that is my interest. that is my interest. >> how do you know they
didn't consider that? >> pardon? >> how do you know they didn't consider that? >> because there are no notes. >> it gets back to what i said, what you are asking for, by way of relief is some law requiring notes. >> i beg to differ, quentin and you know i do that very, very cautiously. >> go ahead. how do you differ? >> i differ with you -- they don't have to do notes, if they don't want to. but they have to say that they didn't do notes and put it in the indices. >> all right. >> no notes. >> all right. >> because the public is entitled to know what records are available on that project. as they say if there are no notes, there are no notes. >> just as a footnote, i'm familiar with the project. i'm familiar with -- i'll call it turmoil -- it's
not quite turmoil, but it may become. maybe there should be a law that says if you are going to reach a conclusion of a ceqa exemption, you lay it out for the public on why. >> well, yes, because -- >> i think that is above our pay-grade. >> of course it is. but the point is that 6729 was designed to improve public access. >> all right. >> so that the departments who do regular kinds of business, like the planning department, will make it known what they do. >> yes. >> and what is available? they do it for other things. if you want to look at a permit application, they are all over that. you can see that. >> when you say "you can see it," you can see it where?
>> on their website. >> is your complaint that they didn't put this on their website? >> no. my complaint is they didn't fill it out and it was -- i think 6729 actually has words that could be construed it has to be on its website. >> the environmental impact report is available, isn't it? >> it is, sure. but how do you know there is one? >> well, isn't there? >> you just ask for it. >> wasn't your complaint though that they didn't put it on their website, so you could download it? >> that is what i do actually with permits. >> right. >> it seems to me that the purpose of that indexing was to make available to the public in ways that are
modern what information is available on these things. >> the index that you refer to, it lists subject-matters. >> yes. >> and you go s to the index and you ask them for the documents. >> no, what you do, if it's accessible on their website like the permits are, you can find it maybe with an address. >> i understand all of that and i'm saying if they have given you an index, can't you say give me everything that you have under this category? >> you could. >> do you? >> huh? >> did you? >> i don't have to. >> you mean -- >> i'm entitled to do it the way the statute outlines it and says it should be done. planning has -- listen, i could tell you stories about planning that you wouldn't believe. commissioner chiu. >> mr. grossman on the website with the indices it does say if the record is
available, you can click on it and download, but if it's not available they give a name and number to contact to see the actual paper copy. how does that not meet your need? >> it doesn't meet my need because it doesn't meet 6729. i shouldn't have to ask for it. i don't have to ask for a copy of a permit because i can get that off their website. if i -- i have been dealing with planning department and the department of public works for at least ten years. and i have gotten used to the things they do that are not permitted under the sunshine ordinance. okay? the planning department has created the office of public records, a nameless position, so that if i submit a records
request to a specific planner, like i did with sarah jones, she doesn't do anything with me. she sends it to this nameless person, and then i get either "we don't have anything," or i might get if there are too many records, well we'll put them on a cd and send us a dollar and we'll mail it to you. okay? even though there is nothing in the sunshine ordinance that says they should do it that way. but i learned to accept that kind of nonsense, even though i'm not well enough any more to drive down and get what i need to get. so if i send it to the custodian, which is what 6721a says, or b, that person should be responding to me.
not somebody whose name i don't know and who puts it in a format that is not one that they regularly use for their own record-keeping. >> thank you. i think your time is up, well past it. >> i just have one more thing that i wanted to say. >> i move 3 minutes. >> i was demoralized by the report, because it was so off-base, and because it was so poorly written and because it lacked complete understanding of public access. and that is why i made a big deal out of the constitutional provision, because there are cases that are going to come up here, which will depend on statutory interpretation. and if they are looked at, like any other case of interpretation, that constitutional provision
won't be reflected and it's important. >> i have asked ms. pelham, notice was sent to the respondents in this matter? >> yes. >> and is there anyone here from either the planning department or sarah jones, or john rahaim? do i hear a motion from any commissioner? >> before there is a motion -- >> pardon me? >> mr. chairman, before any motion, may i? >> sure. >> i'm trying to think of ceqa law. as i remember ceqa law, if a
governmental planning department or some other entity concludes that a project is exempt, at least the custom and practice was there would be a written explanation for it. it would be laid-out in writing. and speaking to mr. grossman's complaint goes beyond my technical prowess as to how this should be done. but the other part seems to be that these deliberations in the planning department, at least hypothetically are conducted orally between employees of the planning department, or some other
department of city government. and there ought to be a law that makes them put it in writing. that is what i gleaned from this. and maybe there should. maybe there should, but i always thought with ceqa you have got to lay it out why it's exempt? it's a major issue. >> my understanding from what mr. grossman has said is that there may well be all of these documents, but because they are not online, he feel it's a violation of the ordinance. >> that is not correct of my position. >> tell me how i'm incorrect on that? >> pardon? >> explain to me how that is incorrect? >> i have the right to know if there was a ceqa review and what the conclusion was. >> wait, didn't you say
there was a -- it's assigned, it's an mta project, take geary boulevard. it was assigned to the planning department to do the ceqa review. and planning department concludes that it was exempt. is that correct? actually not. >> that is not correct? >> they haven't concluded anything. >> they what? >> they haven't concluded anything. that was done by the sf cta as the agency, the lead agency on the project. all they got from planning was input. i'm still looking at -- >> so mta -- as mta as a matter of public record issued a finding that it's exempt? >> not yet. the lead agency is the cta,
not the mta. >> cta? >> yes, county transit -- county transportation authority. >> all right. i'm hopelessly confused and if i said i was puzzled, i would be ahead of the game. >> isle. >> i'm sorry. >> i'm not talking to you mr. grossman. mr. chair, as to whether or not we have a motion, i have no idea what any of this is even about about after listening? i respect mr. grossman a lot, but i just -- i'm totally lost on this item. >> it's such a simple thing. either they put the data in the indices or not? and if they don't do it, they are not complying with 6729. that was the whole -- >> the city attorney is going to help us out here, mr. grossman.
>> this is -- i think it's important to come back to what is the alleged violation and who alleged to have made the mistake and 6729 is a requirement that city city administrator keep basically a website that includes a description of certain categories of documents. that has nothing -- that is not a requirement that is imposed upon the planning department. it's not a requirement that is imposed on any individual employee, like director rahaim or the planner at issue here. so if you look at the language of 67.29, it just simply requires the city to prepare an index of public records, the city administrator is responsible for that index and then there are certain requirements that the index has to clearly and meaning fully describe, as much as practable, basically what the categories of documents are and has
nothing do with the planning department or any individual within the planning department. so my view, i don't see how you could find a violation against either of the two respondents here, because they don't have a responsibility -- >> i'm sorry -- >> mr. grossman, you'll have your chance. continue. >> so that is my point. this is not -- the way the complaint is framed, it's not a request for particular specific documents. it's just an allegation that the online index is deficient and whether or not that is true is irrelevant for purposes of this complaint. because the allegation is the direct rahaim and one of the planners, it's against them specifically. >> the question following up, if they -- if the department files its indices as to what records it has is
it obligated to put on its website all of the records that the indices indicate. >> it's not a requirement that is imposed on the planning department. >> is it imposed on the city administrator? >> it says that the index shall be continuously maintained on the worldwide web. the index itself, but it doesn't mean a comprehensive set of links to every document. >> that is covered by the index. >> how are you going to construe it against their doing that in the face of the section 3b of the constitution? i was just about to say something and i'm going say
it: the sunshine ordinance has a specific provision dealing with the city attorney, and the city attorney cannot aid or assist any department or agency or unit of the city government in denying access to a public record. it's a specific provision in the ordinance, and what he just did was exactly what he cannot do. >> he hasn't denied us access to any record or denied you access to it. . >> well, look you can be unhappy with me. that is fine. you are all lawyers and you all went to good schools and you practiced and you know the difference. what i'm telling you is exactly what is in the law. if you don't want to accept
that is your prerogative but the city attorney, when the mayor's aide was here, the city attorney provided him with a ten-page letter indicating he had every right to delete those entries on his daily calendar. nobody said you can't do that because of sunshine ordinance and your staff isn't well-versed enough to understand that the statute is what controls, not the city attorney's ability to do that. you hit me in a really sensitive spot. >> mr. chairman, and mr. grossman, i look at it from the standpoint of what relief do you want?
>> i want an order that they have to activate the indices, period. >> and who is "they?" >> the planning department. >> all right, i wouldn't vote for such an order, but i would vote for and make a motion to send a letter to the city administrator to put this material up on the website. >> i'll second that. >> >> any discussion? >> i don't know that there is any material to put on the website according to mr. grossman's testimony. >> 67.29 requires that it be an active indices. it's totally dead. and has been for years. >> we need to a 67.29 expert.
it's beyond me. >> so no. 1 the scope of options that are available to the commission right now are listed in chapter 3 and so basically what you just described sending a letter to the city administrator is not one of the options. what is before you is to determine whether these respondents have violated the provisions of the ordinance that have been alegend, which is 67.29? so i can read aloud to you what the options are that available to you. i guess one is that you have to determine if you believe that the respondents here, director rahaim and sarah jones have woefully violated the sunshine ordinance. so that is one and you have to make that determine ation and if you believe there is a woeful violation, can you
can order the respondent to council district the violation and/or produce the records. there is an option to post on the commission's website, the commission's finding there has been a violation. you can issue a warning letter, et cetera but what is at-issue here is whether the respondents have violated the provisions of the sunshine ordinance that have been alegend? legend? alleged? >> i'm not sure what the violations that allegedly occurred and i don't know what the response is of the respondents as to why they say they have complied and haven't violated it? we don't hear anything, and this is one way to go and they are not here and the only evidence that we have is what mr. grossman presented,
and either it appears from that evidence whether or not there was a violation, but frankly i don't know how to make that determination. >> i would disagree there is no other evidence for the commission and we presented the analysis including sedan jones on behalf of mr. rahaim and planning department officials and that they didn't appear here today might mean that they agree with the staff report and didn't believe their response or presence was necessary. we looked at all of the documents that were produced, which included the eir, what the planning department concludes was that the amendment to the eir was categorical exemption because it didn't have significant impact on the environment because it was just an amendment. so it didn't produce a ceqa compliance document and i think that is the crux of mr. grossman's complaint thats
planning department did not produce a document saying why they felt why the amendment was categorically exempted under ceqa, but ceqa doesn't require them to create that record, the index to records under the sunshine ordinance does not require them to create that record and nothing in the law requires them to create that record. so they cannot produce it. our recommendation is that you find that mr. rahaim and ms. jones did not violate the law, and i should say sunshine law -- whether they violated ceqa is a certainty question. mr. grossman has a lawsuit available to him against the city if he firmly believes that ceqa was violated. that is not purview of this body. >> well, in the interim can we send the letter i outlined or would that contradict what you just advised of your conclusions? >> i mean, if you find that they violated the law and if
you find that mr. ra haim and ms. jones, then you can send a warning letter under the sunshine ordinance. >> i will withdraw my motion. >> i withdraw my second. >> again, i'm calling -- is there a motion that we accept the recommendation of the staff? and find no violation? >> so moved. >> second. >> public comment? >> david pilpel and i'll try to keep it brave. brief. i'm familiar with the laws and. >> which laws?
>> the ceqa and planning department and procedures. i think in this case the staff and city attorney got it right. i don't think there was any violation willful or otherwise by the two respondents and mr. grossman is involved with better streets and if he is interested in the environmental review aspect of it, and he appears also interested in the geary brt project. my understanding is that there is a draft eir on that that is out. there was a hearing on that draft eir last year or earlier this year, i think. and that the response to comments is coming, and that document presumably will be certified by the san
francisco county transportation authority as the lead agency. those records exist related to those documents at either sf cta or planning department offices. my understanding is that there is nothing that specifically requires all of those records to be available online, neverthelessing the planning department has an environmental planning page that includes a large number of environmental eirs and other exemption documents for the last few years. there was an amendment to chapter 31 in the city about three years ago that changed the procedures for how san francisco implements ceqa. so that is as to the underlying records that it appears mr. grossman is concerned about. with regard to 67.29, that dates back to 1993. the original sunshine ordinance was amended somewhat with prop g in 1998
and to maintain a index of records and is on the web, which identities types of documents. so as you got in one of the submittals here, case files environmental review, under the category major environmental analysis is the type of listing that would be in the index of records. it doesn't have every single document within that type. it's not possible to maintain that on an ongoing basis. just as the ethics commission's website and index of records will show campaign finance reports without listing every single campaign filer by name or by id number. nevertheless if someone goes to jarrod or someone else in the ethics office and said i'm interested in such or such a campaign or ballot
number, they'll pull up that file and produce it. so the index to records is simply a tax onotomy. it's on the city's website and has been for 20-plus years and it's been upgraded and updated a couple of times, including the last couple of years. joan lubamersky, and the city administrator's office is responsible for that and i can answer any other questions. as i said, i think the staff got it right and i think that is the correct motion in this case. >> thank you. >> thank you. i hope that was helpful. >> any other public comment? hearing none, i will call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? record should reflect that the motion was carried 4-0.
turning to agenda item no. 7. which is for handling ethics commission -- -- complaint no. 1516-23 and 1516-24, joel warnee v. nancy sarieh and the sunshine ordinance task force. that matter has been continued to our december 19th meeting at the request of the chair of the sunshine ordinance task force, who contacted ms. pelham, i think, in early in the week before thanksgiving. indicated that they did not have an opportunity -- would not have an opportunity to submit a response to the staff memorandum and requested that we put it over to give them a chance to do so. and they are to file
whatever response they wish by december 12th, as well as mr. warne may file whatever he wishes to supplement his complaint by november 12th. >> december 12th? >> december 12th. >> december 12th, right. turning to agenda item 8, which is ann treboux v. barbara sklar. ms. treboux do you want to provide the commission with your response and comments on the staff's recommendation? >> chair, we had a request for a five-minute break, if we might? >> all right. >> thank you. >> we'll make it a 10-minute break. so 10 [ gavel ] . all right, we'll proceed now with agenda item 8.
which is the commission -- ethics commission complaint no. 1617-06 ann treboux v. barbara sklar and ms. treboux you have ten minutes to respond to the staff mem memorandum and recommendation. >> this complaint was originally filed with the task force within the three-year window when it was actually heard the first time. unfortunately david pilpell was on the task force. he continued to interrupt me while i was presenting the case. he actually sat in the audience with the respondent and kind of goaded them as to how to respond to the
complaint, and when he was up there he baited kay patterson along as to how to answer the complaint. the conclusion was that the sunshine task force lacked jurisdiction, because the paperwork didn't necessarily have to reside with the arts commission in their office. it would have been in the ethics commission's office. that was the conclusion of that. so it would have been within the three-year window, if i had directly come here, and i didn't know that i could come here to file a sunshine complaint at that time. so basically it came about because barbara sklar has been the chair of the street artists committee for now probably about two years. and obviously she did not know how to run a meeting. she didn't know the rules for it. she didn't know how to
handle public comment, and at the first meeting, there were only three people in attendance, the clark brothers and myself. so basically she was carried outcrying because it became something of a shouting match and security was cleared and it was clear to me there was no order in the room. i looked into her sunshine filings and i person can claim that they will take the sunshine training. there is no paperwork to say i have taken it and here is a test you can quiz me on that i know the sunshine ordinance and such. in fact, several violations and warning letters issued from the task force against barbara sklar in that intervening year for mistakes she made in running meetings.
some were letters and some were orders of determination. so there is that. so that basically the introduction, and the background came from firsthand knowledge that this woman doesn't know how to run a meeting. so then i began looking into her paperwork on your database. and because it takes a long time for this information to download, when i originally filed the complaint, there was a lot of paperwork missing for a lot of years. i think it went back to 2010, and my concern, as i've said, she claims to have served under five mayors with the arts commission. i couldn't find any evidence of that. that would be with the board of supervisors, with the supervisors, with the county clerk's office and there
would be oaths of office in there and there are none, absolutely none whatsoever. so then the form 700s, a lot are duplicatives when i first began looking into your database. the conclusions that you came across, i think were probably correct when this thing was written in 2016, but when i filed it in august 4th, a lot of the information was not downloaded in our database on your website. that is why i filed it. and to this day, barbara sklar continues to file paperwork saying that she will comply, or she will take the sunshine training. but there's never been any
indication that she actually took it or anybody quizzed her on it and since these things are filed electronically, it's kind of confusing as to who actually filed it? whose signature is not there? so when you don't have anybody in person quizzing somebody about meeting paperwork, it becomes very confusing. this woman is 80 years old. she is deaf. she was a political appointee. her husband served on the muni something or other. there was only one record through the board of supervisors in 2009, nothing was checked. she claimed to have a background in -- a diverse background which, in fact, all she had is a background in helping elderly people. i don't know what that has
to do with street artists, which are street artists. you know, a rough group bunch of people to put an 80-year-old woman who is seemingly afraid of her own shadow in charge of this group of people is not a good thing. but she is so scared, she shouldn't have served on it. she doesn't appear at many art commissions meetings. about three full commission meetings a year, probably two visual arts and one street artists meeting. so she doesn't even meet the meeting requirements, but that is not under your jurisdiction. so that is it. she still continues to file these funny paperworks, and should know how to run a meeting. so how she flipped by all
these checks and balances and why her background was never checked out? why her resume was never checked out? you know, making a claim in city hall in the public record on tv at a board of permits and appeals claiming she served under five mayors, but she can't even remember the names of the mayors she served under red-flags anybody and particularly when commissioner fong questioned her, she wasn't responding. even though she was sitting in the front row, she's deaf and it's apparent on the video. and then she filed the complaint against me, which was totally bogus. anyway sticking to this complaint, okay, you know, the statute of limitations timed-out and that is a shame. but she is still continuing to do the same thing. that's it. >> thank you. any discussion of
commissioners? >> mr. chair, i'd just go to the conclusion of our staff, that we don't have jurisdiction relating to this matter. so i move that we take the staff's recommendation that there is nothing that we can do. >> i'm afraid we have to -- statute of limitations is getting a lot of attention in this commission. >> do i hear a second? >> second. >> all right. any public discussion? >> david pilpel, i'll try to be brief and just ignore ms. treboux's personal attack by me. this complaint involves barbara sklar, the widow of dick sklar, the general
manager of committee and she is, as i understand is an artist in her own right and has served for sometime on arts commission, and i believe has earned ms. treboux's ire by chairing the street artist committee, where they have tangled for some years, resulting in a number of complaints to the sunshine ordinance task force. on the instant complaint before you, yes, as you heard, i agree you don't have jurisdiction based on the statute of limitations. further it's not clear to me the statute of limitations issue weren't before you it's not clear to me what you could do other than write a letter or find a violation? i'm not sure how you can compel somebody to fill out this particular form. as i recall the sunshine ordinance requires designated
individuals to certify annually that they have read or will read the sunshine ordinance and any training materials. it doesn't require a hard-date we specified. however, the state requirement, which somebody helped me with it 1822 -- 1234? right, like i said, thank you. does require a hard-date and a separate form, i think there is a separate form for that, the training declaration requires a hard-date and i don't know what the penaltis are under that law for failing to file it, or on a timely basis or otherwise? i assume that is too governed by the 3-year statute of limitations. so in summary, i don't think there is anything you can do on this particular complaint, but to ensure that designated individuals do file and have been trained and are maintaining all of their
forms; that would be helpful. but i assume that is underway as part of the compliance review. thank you very much. >> thank you. any other public comments? >> i'm walking in with no knowledge, but only a lot of opinions, which is if somebody has not filed the normal process in the past is that the commission would refer to the fppc and they will be fined. usually it's a $200 fine for failing to file. so if there is an issue here that someone has not been filing form 700s, it should be referred over. >> of. you also have the authority to act on your own on that. you are commenting in reference to form 700? >> yes. >> thank you. >> i will call the question, all in favor per square foot motion? many of the motion? >> yes. >> aye.
>> opposed? motion carried 4-0. agenda item no. 9 is discussion and possible action on staff's report and recommendation for handling ethics commission complaint no. 1516-59, alvin johnson v. san francisco board of supervisors. is mr. johnson here? and notice was sent to him that you would be hearing it? you want to just summarize the staff recommendation? >> so mr. johnson filed a compliant with the ethics commission that the board of supervisors had willfully violated sunshine ordinance and upon investigation it was determined that not only did
the board of supervisors responsibility sponds to the 40 requests because the volume and close proximity of the requests necessitated the rule with mr. johnson's voluminous requests because it's not possible to respond to them all submitted so closely together and the rule of reason is invoked on the city attorney's office to allow staff to continue their work that needs to be done and not just drop everything and employees responding to requests and staff recommends that the commission find no violation of the sunshine ordinance predominantly because eventually all requests were responded to. >> do i hear a motion? >> mr. chairman, i will move that we find the board of supervisors didn't willfully or non-willfully violate the
sunshine ordinance. >> second. >> any discussion among the commissioners? any public discussion? >> david pilpel again on my time on the sunshine ordinance task force mr. johnson was before us physically once and filed a number of other complaints that were subsequently dismissed for lack of prosecution. he, as i recall, was a former city employee who is no longer with the city and he became very upset about how all that happened, and particularly with the department of technology, and subsequently filed a large number of requests with various agencies including the department of technology, human resources, city attorney, retirement, civil service, board of supervisors, this commission and the list goes on. the city through it's very departments as i understand
has used this implied rule on reason on a very limited number of cases with mr. johnson, with one or two other people over the fullness of time. but very rarely does it have to come to that. in this case it simply was necessary, as i understand it. so i would agree with the staff recommendation that the board of supervisors has complied with the ordinance. there was no violation. they have spent hours and hours as has your staff in responding to requests from this individual. thanks. >> thank you. any other public comment? hearing none, i will call the question. all in favor? >> aye. >> opposed? hearing none, the motion is carried 4-0. turn to agenda item 10, which is discussion of education and compliance division report.
mr. petersen, who is making the presentation? mr. florence. flores. >> good evening commissioners, i will talk what is going on with the campaign finance program. we produced the sf ethics information info graphic and again, just like we did last time, we wanted to produce a snapshot of a story of this past election. and and a lot of money has been raised and spent either for ballot measures or to support or oppose candidates this year. again, the purpose of this handout is to really highlight our dashboard's page to let the public know that they can utilize this information to find out information about what is going on in their particular jurisdiction with regards to the candidates that are running? how much are they raising and how much are they spending
and importantly how much expenditures are affected in the races? another important distinction i want to make is -- sorry about that -- is that of all of the different -- of all the many years i have been at the ethics commission in monitoring finance, this is by far the busiest election i have experienced. on the handout it shows that the number of electronically filed campaign statements literally doubled this year, and what our staff is still growing, we have been able to handle a lot of the monitoring of the campaign statements, as well as disclosures that are involved with these types of campaign statements. >> thank you. i thought it was a very -- i appreciated the memorandum
that you filed. i thought it was very helpful and informative. any comments or discussion among the commissioners? >> chair renne if i would add pat petersen could be with us, but works with jarrod in the education and compliance division and i believe the day aftethe election and the voters approval of prop t with 87% to the vote and we provided to those registered as lobbyists and consultants and developers and a whole host of individuals on our mailing list a copy of the faq on prop t to flag to your attention. even though the law becomes operative january 1st, 2018, we know it's important for folks to understand how it might apply to them and to contact us with questions and i just wanted to highlight
that as well. >> thank you. any public comment? >> larry bush for friends of ethics and to express our thanks to jarrod for the help in making us able to comply and if you can believe how humiliating that friends ofethics didn't comply. thank you. >> i'll turn to agenda item 11, discussion of the executive director's report. ms. pelhan. >> thank you. i'm very happy to share news on the staffing front. first we have a new staff member who will join us as our new senior clerk in the front office, a very small
front office, but jacquelin hickey will join us january 1st and we're very excited about her coming on-board and getting up to speed very quickly with all the work that we have ahead of us. i also wanted to highlight for you sad news, but news that catherine argumedo, who you have been used to seening regularly, but also one of our investigators decided to pursue an opportunity to resume her private practice of law as an immigration attorney. so she left our office november 10th but we were glad to be able to give her a farewell and thanking her for the work she has done and particularly over the summer when we were done to one investigator, derrick chatfield left for an opportunity, catherine did a terrific job keeping the complaint process on-track and responding as timely as she could to incoming complaints. so she did a terrific job
with also the able guidance of our deputy director, but i wanted to on behalf of all of us she left the commission and to thank her for her commitment to the work of the commission and the contributions that she made during her time with us. also at the end of this week, frances mcelroy and jack kines, who have been with us as part-time staff assistants their time with us is coming to an end since the election ended bub they made jarrod's life possible over the last few months and making sure those with requirements with the law were able to get the information that they needed to comply with the law. they have both been terrific assets and we'll be missing them as well. separately as of today we have three positions that closed. they were in recruitment, three certain investigator or investigator legal analyst positions and we'll move along with that process, a senior civil service hiring process and we look forward
to keep doing you informed about that and the recruitment for compliance assistant and i'm hopeful well have news for you at the december meeting as well. i did provide also an update of the november policy plan. as you might imagine with a lot of the focus of my time on all things hiring, and some of our staffing changes that we have seen -- some of the items are taking -- have been pushed further into 2017. so i very much welcome conversations with you, as we go forward. but about how to prioritize these? if you would like to see some different priority order? i just wanted to highlight for you a number of the items that we were hoping to get to were pushed back by a couple of months and will continue to keep you apprised from the staff's perspective where
these might be landing. to bring those forward in the early part of the year with the public financing and campaign financing system in the city. i wanted to highlight those for and happy to answer any questions that you. >> any commissioners have any questions? >> chair renne, i have a question. director pelham, since catherine has left and she was our last investigator, how will you be handling -- do you have resources to handle the incoming and ongoing complaints? >> we do. it's a secret weapon called our deputy director, jessica blome. the reality is that we'll have to pull in staff as needed depending on the nature of the issue? i think one of the challenges in particular will be that following the heels of a busy election season and you have seen on the chart that jessica provided to you, 89
matters under preliminary review and those matters will be continue to be in preliminary review and she'll continue to work through them. review of the sunshine ordinance and regs, those will take a back seat to making sure we triage any complaints or investigations that need to continue? so we'll be using other staff members as possible, depending on the need that we have and the particular background and skills that they bring as well. but again, today's good news that we have three positions that were in recruitment, and we're hopeful that we'll have a strong candidate pool to bring there folks in the early part of the year to help us with going forward. but in the meantime, it will be triage. as best as we can and we'll keep you informed. >> thank you. >> i have a question on page 4 of the report, where you set out the revenues.
you show revenue for statement of economic interest filers. explain that? do you have to pay to file a statement of economic interest? >> no, you do not. you do have a late fee that you pay if you file late. so we could probably be clearer in future charts to make sure that is clear and it's not a fee for service, but a fee for a late filing. >> thank you. >> other questions or comments? public comment? >> david pilpel, once again just wanted to thank the staff for a comprehensive report. and in particular, the chart, one of my favorite documents. a number of these items i would suggest would lend themselves to an interested
persons meeting, so that before something is brought to the commission, for example, the enforcement regulation. which i would think are going to be complicated and a lot of pieces and a lot of changes that we have discussions with people who care about these things and this is what we're currently thinking and what do you think and maybe offline somebody can tell me -- i must have missed this the citywide relations policy? it's not at all obvious to me what that is? is that personnel relationships? is that among departments? sometime you can explain it to me. thank you. >> thank you. turning to agenda item 12, discussion and possible action regarding status of complaints received or initiated by the ethics commission.
i'll first call for public comment on agenda item 12. >> david pilpel. in my experience, i think this is the first time in its history that the commission has gone into closed session in general terms to talk about the status of enforcement matters. obviously you've had closed sessions on particular matters over the years, but i think it's the first time that you have looked at the enforcement program in terms of specific cases that are outstanding. so that is fine. i hope you'll talk about the status of things, and maybe priorities. if there -- if there is a discussion about prioritization and ways to triage in which things should be handled sooner than later and what not? if there is way you could make that part of the discussion public per the results of that, i think that would be all to the good. i think we would be
interested in knowing how you would hope to prioritize the significant caseload that you have now, and what is ongoing? obviously things that are older should take some priority, but if things come in more recently that are of more significance or magnitude in your judgment, or the judgment of the staff, that, too, would make sense to prioritize. in any event, however you come out with that, the public or least some of us would be interested there that. otherwise, i hope you get through figuring out what to do with that big caseload and reducing it. thank you. >> thank you. why don't we go into closed session. >> i don't know if there is more public comment? we will go? >> why? why would would go? why can't we talk in public? >> because they are all confidential until such time -- >> the charter requires confidentiality. >> the charter requires it. all right.
>> thank you all very much. good night. >> all right. any other public comment? >> a little bit in the dark as to this -- as to exactly how broad your review will be? one of the issues that had come up earlier was the process for selecting committees to be audited? and a motion was made at that time, but not accepted that you ought -- there were committees under criminal investigation for money-laundering. and the decision was that they would be selected out of order and instead, the commission was operating under a process of selecting things at random, rather than with a priority. i would like to suggest as you look at these issues, if you do have criminal charges that have been in the press and so forth, it would be well-advised for the commission's credibility to
elevate those beyond what might be selected by random, to make sure that they are audited and the public is aware that you would audit. thank you. >> commissioner keane? >> just a comment for the record, mr. chair, and sort of following up on commissioner cope kopp's observation and something that i brought up the last time. in regard to these matters the question of making probable cause determinations and the question of the fact that there has been a complaint filed, there is really no due process requirement that we have all of this confidentiality. and i would echo what i said the last time in regard to the discussion that ms. pelham sometime next year,
we really engage this matter in regard to having these secret, closed probable-cause proceedings and also all of the other aspects of confidentiality. the charter requires it. i don't think it's necessary and i think the public has a right to know both of the complaint and of the probable cause matters, how the probable-cause matters are dealt with? it's something that i hope we take care of within the next year. >> do i hear a motion that we move to assert attorney-client privilege and meet in closed session with the city attorney? . so moved. >> >> certainly, i'll second. >> all in favor? >> aye.
>> all right. [ gavel ] >> commissioner kopp, i think you were in the middle of your comments. >> a large percentage, not a plurality, a majority of these pending matters are tributable to deferring to a request by the district attorney to abate our investigation, while the da investigates. and some of those requests, as the chairman noted, go back to 2013, as others are 2014. others are 2015.
there -- they are at least a year old and does that a disservice to the people of san francisco. itdoes a disservice to this commission which tries to execute its responsibilities. and i have marked, and i will initiate a motion, as required, to seek a return, or a reinstitution of our own investigation in about 20 of these cases. and alternatively as the agenda indicates, the commission can formulate a policy for the guidance of the public, and the district attorney as well, of putting
a time limit on the district attorney's request for us to abate an investigation with a provision in the policy that at the end of that period we resume our investigation and take action. i don't want to see a repeat of what happened in the farrell case, for example, of a statute of limitations running. that is a bona fide concern. justice delayed is justice denied. ; it's trite but when you look at the report pending matters, it's true. thank you, mr. chairman. >> turning to item -- agenda item no. 13, discussion and possible
action on items for future meetings. [ inaudible ] >> i think we had public comment on agenda item 12 and we're now on agenda item 13, and agenda item 14 allows for further public comment and i would suggest, mr. bush, that you can make your comments at that time. so on item 13. >> mr. chairman >> yes, commissioner kopp? >> i should like to request an investigation by our staff of the following apparent facts: a committee known
commonly as no on d, h, l and m was formed, d, h, l, and m, refer to propositions on the november 8th san francisco ballot. to raise money to defeat each of those measures. the san francisco chronicle reported on or about november 9th that with the mayor's help, and i quote "with lee's help the no on d, h, l and m campaign raised and pend more than $2,200,000 about ten times as much was spent to
them of support them." "them" being the ballot measures, d, h, l and m. the second fact is that the person named tony winacker described as a " described as a senior advisor, took a leave of absence from the mayor's office and managed the campaign to defeat all of those four measures. and as quoted as criticizing the san franciscans who were responsible for those being on the ballot including various members of the board of supervisors. i'm informed and believe that mr. winacker isn't
registered as a campaign consultant. there is -- i'm informed and believe there is no form 700, the state form on statement of economic interests on file for him, and it appears that there is evidence and it appears there is justification for an examination and investigation of all those circumstances as to whether the committee mentioned is a candidate-controlled committee, or was a candidate-controlled committee, if it no longer exists? controlled by the mayor. and that the requisite campaign statements were not
followed, or filed as a candidate-controlled committee. i think that sums it up, and i'll provide any other information that i have to shorten the time required. >> any other suggestions for items for future meetings? public comment? hearing none, we'll go to item 14, which is now an opportunity for public comment on any matter either on or off the agenda. mr. bush? >> larry bush -- [ inaudible ]
as a reporter a few years ago -- i did an investigation with the sunshine ordinance request -- [ inaudible ] i received -- i asked for them without identifiers because of confidentiality issues. i didn't receive a list -- [ inaudible ] that the district attorney then provided a formal written response, that they had no record of anything being referred to them by the ethics commission. so it was clear that there is a miscommunication that was taking place. also it appears that nobody had a tickler-system that paid attention to when these things are. so the fact that you are putting on your
agenda an examination of this, i would just like it to be on the record that we did -- i did do that through the sunshine ordinance and i did establish a record it was not being done. as a former member of the civil grand jury, there are certain confidentiality standards that i cannot further disclose, but if you reads the ethics report from the 2013-14 civil grand jury report on ethics, you'll be able to discern that additional information emerged about the gap in follow-up at that time. thank you. >> thank you. hearing no further public comment, somebody moved for adjournment. >> so moved. >> second. all in favor of adjourning?