Skip to main content

tv   Government Access Programming  SFGTV  September 5, 2019 10:00am-11:01am PDT

10:00 am
10:01 am
10:02 am
10:03 am
10:04 am
>> good morning, everyone. welcome to the thursday exit a fifth meeting of the government audit and oversight committee. i am the chair of this committee
10:05 am
i'm joined by supervisor aaron peskin and supervisor vallie brown who will be joining us shortly, and we are also joined by supervisor safai. thank you to the committee's clerk. i would also like to thank san francisco government tv staff for staffing. mr. clerk, do you have any announcements? >> thank you. please ensure you have silenced yourself owns an electronic devices. your completed speaker cards a copy of documents should be cemented to the clerk. items acted upon today will appear on the september 19th, 2019, board of supervisors agenda unless otherwise stated. >> thank you. since item number one was sponsored by supervisor brown, along with supervisor safai, we will skip that one until she gets here. let's move to item number two.
10:06 am
>> item number two is an ordinance amending the campaigning government conduct code to increase the matching ratio for campaign contributions raised by candidates participating in the financing program and the amount of public funds available for those candidates. >> thank you. welcome, supervisor brown. we skipped to item number two. i just wanted to make some opening remarks. i am incredibly excited to bring this ordinance before this committee today. in 2019, with our democratic norms and values under assault every day, it has never been more important for us to advance -- invest in strengthening our democracy. the path to a more just future is stronger democracy and a fair and more just elections. when the voters of san francisco crated our public financing program in 2,000, it was cutting edge and it established san
10:07 am
francisco as a leader in publicly financing elections. since then, outside spending outside campaigns has skyrocketed and we have fallen behind our peers and keeping up with the times. the ordinance before us, based on a simple idea, public official should be accountable to the public, in this accountability must start and how we are elected. public financing of elections allows candidates to compete in campaigns increasingly flooded with private funds from super pacs. it apple flies the voices of our constituents and provides greater regulation and accountability for those who seek office. this is not a controversial idea it was the people of san francisco who establish this program. the national democratic party has recognized recognize the urgency in furthering them when nancy pelosi retook the gavel this year, the first piece of
10:08 am
legislation passed by the new democratic majority was h.r. one , that we the people act. with sweeping electoral reform, including establishing public financing for congressional races at a 6-1 matching ratio, h.r. one mirrored every part of this ordinance. while these reforms are blocked on the federal level, we cannot wait for washington to start to the essential work of strengthening our democracy. it falls upon cities to lead and we can do this here and now. this ordinance represents the single greatest expression of our public financing program since its inception two decades ago. modernizing and bringing the program further in its goals. it does this in a few ways, most importantly, it increases the amount of publicly -- public funds available to qualified candidates. it increases the ratio from 2-1 to 6-1, while limiting the
10:09 am
matchable portion of a contribution to $150. this will significantly amplify the overall impact of the program while specifically amplifying the impacts of grassroots, small valard donations from individuals. because the value of your voice in our democracy should not depend on the value of your bank account. it also increases the end of -- this ordinance began with community meetings hosted at the commission over a year ago. it went through a robust inquest process from community stakeholders, campaign finance reform, advocate -- advocates
10:10 am
and our office. multiple draft recommendations from the ethics commission staff and amendments at the ethics commission where the final version before us ultimately received unanimous support. we partnered with the b.l.a. for substantive policy analysis of these reforms, which is before you today. also on record for this file are letters of support from the aclu and the campaign legal centre. without further ado, i would like to welcome leanne, executive director of the ethics commission. >> good morning. thank you, and good morning members. i appreciate your opening comments and the ethics commission is really delighted to be able to be here and have the opportunity to encourage this paddle and the full board to support this ordinance. as you indicated in your opening
10:11 am
comments, this is a process where the ethics commission, for the past year, is really tried to focus on how we can strengthen the public financing program and it has been a process with lots of stakeholder involvement. we know there is a balancing of interests and needs in any legislative package that we bring forward and we feel that this one really does move the dial forward in terms of encouraging, not just participating by candidates in community-based individuals, to run for office, who don't have to rely as heavily on larger donors, would also really encouraging citizens to get more involved. we are increasing the value of their contribution to political campaign. as you indicated, cities have been leading this effort around the country for years. san francisco is taking that path and we are very excited to be part of this discussion of encouraging the changes that you highlighted. as you know, this is a system that is voluntary so candidates have to participate in it and opt into it. our focus is a commission has
10:12 am
been to look at how we can make the program attractive to candidates within existing funding levels and also encourage greater participation among the voters that candidates are seeking to be elected to represent. over the years, the historical figure shows that the program has been opted into by roughly half or less of candidates on the ballot. so for us, that was a motivating factor to look to see how we could increase that so the candidates of real resources to run and recognize a availability his of campaigns in 2019 and update and modernize the program so it is relevant and is an incentive to candidates to want to participate. we know when they participate, the public does benefit. this is the third phase of the changes we have brought to the board of supervisors. we started with an initial change in a phase i ordinance that was a technical cleanup that the board and the mayor adopted.
10:13 am
we had the regulatory changes that also address provisions in the public financing program administration. those are now in law as of effect of july 30th. this is only the third piece and one that is the most substantive that we are very excited about. i just wanted to thank you for your leadership and support in moving forward and the focus of this committee and the time you spending to bring the program forward that is beneficial for san franciscans and all people who participate. i'm happy to answer any questions. i want to thank you for that time. >> thank you so much. thank you for your work on this in the ongoing work that you and your staff do administering the public financing program and our other ethics programs in san francisco. now we would like to welcome fred from the budget and legislative analyst office to present his detailed report and overview on this item.
10:14 am
>> good morning, supervisors. i'm from the budget and legislative analyst's office. i am going to start this. we have issued -- sorry. is there a way to get this on the slideshow? okay, i see. we issued a report to you yesterday on the proposed legislation, the public campaign financing and i will do a quick summary of that report this morning. first of all, a quick background , most of you probably know the program started in 2,000 with the passage of proposition oh. it is a matching program where private funds are matched with public funds and as was
10:15 am
mentioned, it is a volunteer program. initially it covered the board of supervisors and in 2006, the mayor's office was added to the program. the funding structure has changed over the years. at one time there was a 4-1 match, but now it is between one and 2-1. public funds disbursed over the years since it has been in place ranging from 281.9 $24.7 million in 2011. with a range of all candidates spending covered by the program. that is an average of 29%. participation has ranged from nine to 23 candidates per election, which equates to 12 to 67% of all candidates on the ballot, averaging around 40 1%. the programs are in place in other cities.
10:16 am
they have public finance camping programs, as well. those with a 6-1 matched rates include new york, los angeles, berkeley, portland. denver and baltimore are now adding 9-1 matched rates to their programs. current structure for board of supervisors elections as presented in this table, and as you can see, there are three tiers in the current program, and different matching rates going with each tear. the first is the qualifying requirement where candidates need to raise a certain amount of money based on a certain number of donors, and it is 10,004 nonincumbent and 15,004 incumbent, and that qualifies them for the program. they get matching public funds for nonincumbent his and 3-14 incumbent his. and then there are two more tiers of fundraising with
10:17 am
matching contributions, meaning the amount of the contribution that will qualify for public funds, and it is set at $500 right now. the match rate for the second tier is 2-1, so when $50,000 in private funds are raised, the candidate gets 100,000, and then there is a third tier, so they matching contribution amount of $500. the rate drops down to 1-1. you can see at the bottom of the the total amount that can be raised is the individual expenditure ceiling with a maximum that the candidates can spend on their campaigns that is $250,000 in on the table shows the makes of public and private monies that add up to that amount. candidates may not raise all that if they don't get -- if they don't raise all the private funds required, but they would get a portion of the match up to what they have raised prior. this table shows the current structure for mayor -- mayoral
10:18 am
elections. same idea, with the dollar amounts are greater and you can see the match rates and the matching contributions in the same columns, and the difference between incumbent and nonincumbent. in both cases, nonincumbent get slightly more money for their private fundraising then incumbents. and right now, that would add up to $1,475,000, maximum individual expenditure ceiling. if the candidates raise all the required private money and get through the associated public funds. the individual expenditure ceiling can be increased by the ethics commission, but that requires that their opponents have raised more money and are using some funds were oppositional spending or that they have more quarter funding that exceeds the individual
10:19 am
expenditure ceiling. the proposed changes in the legislation have a number of policy objectives and these are captured on this table. for the legislative change, we do see the maximum private contribution amount that qualifies for public matching funds and increasing the match rate from right now that ranges from 1-1 to 2-1 and would be increased to 6-1 for nonincumbent his -- incumbents. the associated objectives are to enhance the impact of smaller sized donations and encourage candidates regardless of whether their supporters and donors are able to contribute large sums or not. another area of change is increasing the initial total spending limits or the individual expenditure ceiling for publicly financed campaigns
10:20 am
and providing a greater amount of public funds for candidates, and the objectives here at apple for resources available to participate with candidates for more effective and sufficiently resourced campaigns, and to provide participating candidates with more available resources and make their time available for communicating their policies and reducing their time fundraising. another area that is proposed for change is the area public financing reduction in funds that candidates must privately raise qualify for the remaining public funds, and reducing the number of tears a private fundraising requires to access public funds as i showed on the previous slide. with the proposed changes there be two. the objective is to reduce the importance of raising large sums of money to access the public funds. on this chart we show the changes for the board of
10:21 am
supervisors elections and candidates, and you can see this highlights where they are separated by incumbent and nonincumbent. the ceiling goes up by $100,000. i think that is important to note that they would still be a $10,000 minimum for candidates to get -- for nonincumbent candidates to be able to programs and $15,000 for incumbents. that is a qualifying amount right now. that does not change. but once in, what does change is the maximum public dollars available for candidates shown on the next row which increases by approximately $100,000 for both non-incumbent and incumbent the amount to be privately raise to release those funds decreases , that's because of the increased match rate. it goes from 95,000 in private
10:22 am
funds and non-incumbent his that have to raise to 42,500, a reduction of $52,500 per candidate. for incumbents, the changes from 97,500 and now 47,000. for tier two, the matching contribution amount, this is the amount of the contribution that the donor can give up to $500 illegally to a candidate, but right now, all 500 of that counts towards matching funds. the larger the donation, the faster candidates get the public funds. under the proposed changes, the matching contribution would reduce to $150. it would not take as large of a contribution but the candidate would get access to the public funds with a smaller amount at a higher match rate. and then finally, the total amount to be privately raise to allow the candidate to spend the individual expenditure ceiling
10:23 am
maximum stays the same. it is currently 95,000, and that would remain 95,000, but they would have received all the public funds for less than that, it is just that they can continue private fundraising after they've acquired or been granted the public funds. the next slide, i won't go through the same detail, but this shows the arrangements currently, and as proposed for mayoral candidates and it follows the same pattern of increase individual expenditure ceilings, a maximum public dollar available for candidates increased, a smaller amount that needs to be privately raised to access the public fund, and a lower matching contribution so smaller donations results in higher amounts of public funds available. one of the impacts of the
10:24 am
proposed changes that i've shown on this slide and this chart, and i think it's important to note, that there are two variables that will have impact here. one is the increase in the match rate and that seems obvious if you get $6 for every one privately raised dollar, that is better now -- better than what it is now. it is also significant in the reduction in the matching contribution. you can see on the left two bars it shows there is a five time differential right now if you didn't change the matching contribution. there's a 500-dollar donation candidates would have $30,500 at their disposal, mostly because of the increased public funds. five times more than a donation of $100 to provide to candidates with the proposed changes, the 6 -1 match rate increases the amount of public funds that would be provided, with a
10:25 am
differential between a 100-dollar donation and a 500-dollar donation is reduced. so there's only 1.5 differential this captures the important policy objectives for the proposed legislation. the next page, a different way of looking at this, but quickly showing what the current program -- with the current program, a 150-dollar donation. the match right would provide three underdogs the public funds to the candidate with the proposed changes, is $900. right now, 500-dollar donations with a 6-1 match rate that would provide -- a 2-1 match rate would provide $1,000, but with the proposed changes, the 6-1 match rate, but only 150-dollar matching contribution. that donation would result in $900 in public funds. you can see it is the same as a 150-dollar donation and dilutes the impact of large donations in terms of access to the public funds.
10:26 am
we did look at the election campaign funds because this will result in higher rates of spending of public funding if the proposed changes are adopted what we have seen is that the election campaign fund generally is very well-funded. it started in 2018 was $7 million, it is well-funded in part because of the level of participation in the program. so there are funds that are allocated every year by the board of supervisors through the budget process, but if they don't all get spent, then this is the nonelection mirror and they will move over to next year the result has been a fund that funds that has been able to cover all public funding for the campaign since the program has been in effect, except for one year, the very first year. so this shows, except for example, expenditures in 2018. and this was the year that we had the board of supervisors and mayoral elections, and even with
10:27 am
all of that spending, it was about $4.2 million. the fund had $7 million at the beginning of the year. it was more than sufficient to cover. it was 14 candidates that participated. under the proposed changes, and assuming all the same candidates will participate in the program, but now have the higher rates of public funding granted to them, that would require six my $4 million, assuming they all got -- $6.4 million. so with the 7 million-dollar balance in the election campaign fund to begin with, there is still sufficient funding. in fact, there would be $632,000 left over after providing the candidates with that level of funding. the concern over the long term, there could be problems with the fund. this table shows if
10:28 am
participation levels increase, the level of funds that would need to begin the election campaign fund to ensure that all candidates could receive the maximum public funding. so it is probably safe right now in that there is this 7 million-dollar cap on the fund , in most years there is $7 million available. that would cover 207 candidates for the board of supervisors under the proposed changes, and assuming it to do 55,000-dollar in public funds per candidate, which is certainly a healthy number right now. participation runs between 12 and 14 candidates on average for the board of supervisors per election, in a normal election. for mayoral candidates, five candidates could be covered with the 7 million-dollar cap, currently provided if more participated over time, for example, if it got up to seven, that would require eight my
10:29 am
$4 million, which is severe, and in the funds would not be sufficient. in doing this, we are also looking at the provisions in the campaign and the government conduct code that provide the funding to the election campaign here is a quick summary of it. every year the funds received -- the fund receives an appropriation of $2.75 per resident. that is about to $.3 million per year. with then in addition, there is the bulldozer funds. there usually is more than that in the fund per year. the code has a 7 million-dollar cap on the election campaign fund at present, although that is one section of the code. another section allows for
10:30 am
mayoral baseline that right now, with the current population of the city and the amount in administrative costs, actually exceeds $7 million. is a conflict in the code with what is provided for a baseline mayoral election and the cap that is set in another section of the code. in addition, there are provisions for additional funding for 15% administrative costs associated with the mayoral and board of supervisors baselines. that also pushes the mayoral amount and there's no provision in the code right now for what should be taken out and if it should be reduced to get back to the $7 million or if it is allowed to exceed it. some language is needed and some work on the code, which isn't immediately necessary for the proposed legislation. it is something that down the road should be addressed, particularly participation in the program increases over the
10:31 am
years. finally, the board of supervisors baseline in the code right now only allows for $1,295,000. if that were the only funding provided, it would be inadequate to cover even the current program, the current program has been covered. the annual appropriation what you see the top of 2 million dollars exceeds the baseline for the board and just having that alone provides more funding for the candidates, but it actually is not sufficient if that was all that was in any have 15 candidates running, you'd still be short. another consideration is interesting.
10:32 am
our conclusion is that the legislation wanted to address all of the policy goals stated there and detailed in the report how each one is addressed. and then the second through fourth are about the issues i just raised on the campaign and government conduct code and the need to certainly reduce inconsistencies between different sections of the code and address the issue that $7 million is the cap that the board of supervisors wants to keep for the program, particularly with potential growth not only with city population which drives funding, but -- participation in the program. and then the final one is addressing the issue of the baseline funding for candidates. we came up with a number that the board could consider.
10:33 am
these numbers would allow for funding that would cover 15 board of supervisors candidates an important note on that is that only kicks in if there isn't funding in the election campaign to begin with, so it would likely not lead to the need for additional appropriation, but sort of a backup to ensure that sufficient funding is available. that is a summary of the report. there are a lot of details in the document they have before you now. >> thank you so much for your presentation and all your work presenting the report. colleagues, we had one more presentation from the b.l.a.'s office on her separate fiscal analysis of the ordinance, i wondered if we could see if we could at that presentation and
10:34 am
then move to questions discussion. >> good morning, members of the committee. what is before you today is an ordinance to make changes to the city's campaign and governmental code to increase the initial grants in the matching fund for candidates of board of supervisors and mayor. you will see the summary of the changes in our report on table one on page seven and table two on page eight. i won't go through those, but in terms of the physical -- fiscal impact, i'll have to give them credit. if this legislation had been in 2018, the actual contribution to the 11 candidates to the campaign fund were $1.5 million under this legislation.
10:35 am
>> thank you for your analysis. before we go to public comment, do you have any -- supervisor peskin? >> i just had a question. i may run for election in the year 2020, and i have actually taken out the appropriate papers to do so, and have a question as to whether or not i have any conflict in voting on this matter as it could potentially impact my campaign financing. >> you do not. you and probably many other members of the board and the mayor could benefit, or your campaign could benefit from this ordinance in the future or it
10:36 am
could be hindered by this ordinance in the future depending on the content, but under the conflict of interest laws that apply to city officials, voting on an ordinance that may impact campaign laws like this does not create a conflict for you. >> thank you. >> thank you for clarifying that any other questions? >> we can move to public comment if there any members of the public wish to testify on this item you have two minutes. >> good morning, embers of the committee. my name is -- [indiscernible] -- and i'm here in support of
10:37 am
the match proposal. we submitted a letter of support and i like to highlight a few points. we believe this is an important tool in the empowerment of politically underrepresented community members, second, this update to the program is critical in ensuring participation and competitiveness of community-based candidates who may not otherwise have access to a donor. third, this proposal provides the right incentives an opportunity for candidates to spend time reaching out to the various people they hope to represent, rather than a select few who will be donors. finally, the time for this update is now. the 2020 election season is a reelection which will engage and re-energize many more voters. we ask that you please vote in favour of this proposal. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, everyone.
10:38 am
we were supporting public financing campaigns. we were instrumental in helping the system be initiated when it was in its inception. we are here again to continue to support public financing of the campaigns. we support all these amendments and reforms and we have seen nationally that the influence of money in politics and the impact it has on our democracy is a serious crisis and we applaud san francisco and do hope you vote in these changes because we need to set an example and see a city this amazing and large as san francisco that can run a system like this and create better democracy and more access for small donors and people that would otherwise not run. so we do hope you vote against these reforms. thank you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is peter. i have been involved in city
10:39 am
government in san francisco for about 40 or 50 years on various levels. i was a chief assistant public defender, i'm a former member of the police commission and former chair of the ethics commission, i commend you for having this before you. it is an example of getting away from the whole idea of paying for pay to play. someone who has the most money can go ahead and pick a candidate and then have the candidates take their cause. there is the matching funds aspect and also in particular, there are small amounts benefiting new candidates that are coming in. it is something that is the height of democracy, and at a time where in terms of the federal government we see in abdication of democracy, in terms of cities like san francisco and other cities, running with the ball and putting forth measures that are indeed at the heart of democracy
10:40 am
it is quite commendable. i ask you to support this and i'm quite grateful that you have it before you. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. my name is john. i am an adjunct professor of election law at golden gate university. i have been involved in these campaigns are a couple decades. i have an advocate for government reform. i have a couple points to make. i was involved in some of the public interest meetings of the commission held starting last summer and really appreciate the inclusive process. this is not a super simple issue and there are a lot of moving parts. i think the balance between raising the match and lowering the contribution amount for matchable contributions really does empower small donors and that is incredibly important in this day of big money and the perception, if not the reality of big dark money in giant
10:41 am
corporations dominating our political process. i also just want to empathize with the budget analyst that the san francisco system, when it was passed by voters in 2,000, was one of the strongest, ending the two decades since, it has been one of the weakest, as was mentioned, several cities have gone up to 6-1, 9-1, new york city is up by 80%. it will take effect in a couple of years. that has changed. that is why it is valuable to modernize our system. in addition, citizens united and the supreme court's restrictions on most attempts to balance the system and empower clean money. they have been afforded. the one area they have allowed it to proceed is public financing. the system is well within the bounds of the court. thank you. >> thank you. are there any other members of the public that wish to speak on this item? c. and none, comment is closed.
10:42 am
colleagues, do you have any questions or comments? >> i have one point of clarification. so the threshold lowering, if someone donates $200, you just get credit for the 150? >> yes. >> it is matched up to $150. >> i wanted to say i appreciate you taking the lead on this is someone who has gone through multiple campaigns and been a beneficiary of public financing. i can tell you firsthand that the ability to have money matched and the ability to have access to public funds freeze up your time is a candidate to do the things that voters really want you to do, which is come talk to them. whether it is at the street corner, at your house, at a community event or forum, rather than having to spend your time endlessly raising money, and that consumes a significant
10:43 am
amount of time for candidates. so the ability to have access to public funds is a wonderful, wonderful way to free up the opportunity for all candidates, regardless of if it is the first time running or they are incumbent, and as was pointed out, candidates that might not necessarily have access to networks to access those funds. i commend you for taking leadership on this in the community for doing the hard work and pushing this forward and bringing san francisco up to what other cities have already been doing. thank you to the ethics commission for their hard work and the b.l.a. that was a wonderful presentation. very clear, very easy to understand. thank you. >> thank you. before we vote, i just wanted to thank a few people for their work, feedback, and support on this important measure. the ethics policy director, the deputy city attorney, campaign-finance report advocates.
10:44 am
the campaign legal centre and the aclu. in conclusion, i wanted to thank everyone who worked on this and your support. we can strengthen our democracy, we can lift up working people and we can do this here and now. with your support, we will. thank you again. can we move this -- >> sorry, can you add me as a cosponsor. >> thank you. can we move this forward with a positive recommendation positive recommendation? without objection? thank you. great. we will go back to item number one. please call that item. >> agenda item number one is an ordinance amending the ministry of code to amend heart trouble and pneumonia presumptions for firefighter and police officer industrial disability and death
10:45 am
result of duty and retirement benefits. >> thank you. today we are continuing an ordinance to amend the ministry of code that affects our first responders' ability to seek disability and retirement benefits when they suffer from heart trouble or pneumonia. due to the in parent nature of their job, the conditions they were kind and exposure -- work under and the exposure to harsh chemicals, are more susceptible to developing heart disease and suffering traumatic heart attacks than the general public. these amendments will bring our administrative code into alignment with the state labor code, codes of other municipalities in the bay bay area, and our own admin code governing disability benefits for deputy sheriff his. currently, san francisco firefighters and police officers must prove that any heart trouble or pneumonia they have suffered is from the result of being on the job. under the state labor code,
10:46 am
those disabilities are presumed to be a result of the conditions first responders work under. the change we are considering today will have a minimal physical impact -- fiscal impact , mirrors the state labor code, prevents the cause of disability to any prior existing disease if no evidence of a heart trouble or pneumonia was identified and the physical examination of the member conducted as part of their initial higher. initially, with this change, if a firefighter or police officer suffers from heart trouble or pneumonia, and then applies for disability benefits, the worker conversation division is to presume those ailments are results of the job, even if there is no evidence of those conditions existing at the time of hire. every day we ask our firefighters and our police officers to risk their lives and step into dangerous situations.
10:47 am
today we have an opportunity to step up and do the right thing for them. the b.l.a. is here to speak about the fiscal impacts and also peggy from d.h.r. is here to answer any questions. thank you. >> thank you. thank you supervisor brown. i just want to thank our leadership of the firefighters as well as police officers for bringing this to our attention. i think this was an oversight on behalf of the city. especially because it is codified in our state labor code as a supervisor brown has said, and to think that this type of job, in terms of the amount of life expectancy, in terms of the amount of exposure to dangerous materials, in terms of the amount of stress that comes with the job, we made a very simple change here to get a physical, see where you are at, we measure , look for existing conditions, sorry to use that
10:48 am
phrase, with see if there's something in the person's history that has to do with their heart or trouble with pneumonia, once they are clear, then it is very straightforward. on the job stress or on-the-job exposures that might affect their heart or exposures to pneumonia should be covered. we have had a report from the b.l.a., and i know we have our executive director here today. the physical -- the fiscal impact is negligible, but the overall impact to the membership of the police board and firefighters is an important benefit that we want to confer. i'm he happy to be a lead cosponsor was supervisor brown and thank you to our firefighters and police officers for bringing this to our attention and advocating on behalf of your membership. >> thank you. thank you, supervisor brown and safai for all of your work on this. i would like to be added as a cosponsor.
10:49 am
we have a brief presentation from the b.l.a.'s office on the fiscal impact. >> the proposed legislation before you would amend the city 's administrative code to comply with state requirements for four police officer or a firefighter, if they have heart disease and pneumonia. this is an industrial industry. the actual cost is based on the actuaries and the retirement system. increasing the city's retirement contribution. retirement contributions are on the table and are estimated to be less than a tenth of a% increase in the percentage contribution to payroll. we consider the recommendation to be positive and recommend it recommended to the board of supervisors. >> thank you. when we move to public comments,
10:50 am
are there any members of the public who wish to testify on this item? actually, i have one speaker card. >> mr. chairman, board members, supervisors, thank you for the opportunity to present and thank you for your support of this. in 19309, 80 years ago, a charter amendment came in which was 16.85 creating something for police officers. in that same year, the legislator in the state of california created a heart presumption that applies throughout the state. over the years, these last 80 years, the presumption containing in the labor code has changed numerous times. the presumption contained in our own administrative code has changed not once. we are asking simply that the administrative code parallel the code that applies for all public
10:51 am
police officers and firefighters in the state of california so they are similar. here is an example as to what the change would amount to. supposing a san francisco firefighter or police officer with 25 years of service was out on the job and in pursue of their own employment, they suffered a heart attack. this firefighter or police officer, because of the severity of the attack, may not be able to return to sir her employment. under the current system, evidence could be introduced to show that firefighter or police officer was under medical care for hypertension which -- and may have been taking cholesterol pills, and other things of that sort to attempt to defeat that application. under this legislation, that no
10:52 am
longer will be allowed. it is not allowed in the cases and it is not allowed in the 1937 counties act. 95% of police officers and firefighters are under those sections. we are all going to be treated the same. thank you for your support. >> thank you. next speaker, please. >> good morning, supervisors. i'm a san francisco firefighter. i stand here to think our sponsor and cosponsors for bringing this legislation up. this would be a great opportunity for us to be able to work more with the families of our firefighters and police officers who suffer. there are many times -- most of the families are struggling to get healthy and be able to move forward. and then have the extra stress of trying to go and fight has put much strain on them.
10:53 am
thank you for your work. >> thank you. next speaker. >> good morning, supervisors. i also want to thank all of you for sponsoring this legislation. over time, we noticed there were certain holes or loopholes in our presented legislation and it started out with finding out the firefighters are having to fight to get their paycheque while they were battling cancer, and later on we discovered there was also a similar loophole in the legislation for heart presumption where police officers and firefighters had to be fighting for their paycheque while fighting for their life. this closes that loophole and gives assurance to those who give their heart and soul to the city that they will be taking care of. we thank you and appreciate their work on this. -- appreciate your work on this.
10:54 am
>> thank you. are there any other members of the public who wish to testify? seeing none, public comment is closed. >> mr. chairman, by e-mail to the clerk, i'm also a cosponsor. >> thank you. can we recommend this to the full board without objection? thank you. mr. clerk, please call item number three. >> agenda number three is a real illusion -- resolution approving the annual reports for the community valley district. it is required by the improvement district law of 1994 in the district management agreement. >> thank you. i would like to recognize helen mar from the office of economic and workforce development. you have three minutes to present on this item. >> good morning supervisors. my name is helen and i'm the project manager with the office of economic and workforce development and working on the
10:55 am
team that provides oversight to the program. we're we are here today for the community benefit district fiscal year 17, 18 annual report review. as you may know, the boards are governed by total pieces of legislation. our review process is oewd ensures that all c.b.d.s and b. ids are meeting their management plan. we conduct an annual review of reports and they review. we provide the board of supervisors with a memo. here is a parcel map for the c.b.d. encompasses 218 parcels. it is a property-based district with an initial assessment budget of $230,000. it was established in 2005 and is set to expire on june 30th, 2020.
10:56 am
the executive director is also here. their service areas are public rights-of-way and sidewalk operation, district identity and street improvements, as well as administration and corporate operations. oewd staff reviewed the following budget related benchmarks for the c.b.d. benchmark one was a variance between the budget amounts for each service category with the intent -- within ten percentage points. benchmark two was a 5% of the valley actuals that came from sources other than adjusted revenue. leslie, whether the c.b.d. is indicating the amount of funds carried over and designating projects to be spent in the upcoming fiscal year. for benchmark one, the c.b.d.
10:57 am
did not meet this benchmark. this was due to an additional requirement by the city for their financial statements. they did meet their benchmark two and raised over 207.3% in nonassessment revenue. they met benchmark three for their budget versus actual, and benchmark four, they carried over their spending to the upcoming fiscal year. in conclusion, they will sunset into 2020 and begun the renewal campaign. they did not meet benchmark one due to its structural weakness in the management plan. the c.b.d. needs to decrease the budgeted amount for administrative and corporate operations by 3.5% and increase the budget.
10:58 am
are there any questions for staff? >> thank you so much. >> hello, i'm the executive director. we clean, green, and improve public space. she showed you the mac. what we have done is a long-term street plan which is enables us to provide benches and open gardens and we are very active with the community. we put on lots of events throughout the year. we had grants from oewd, which used to be a gas station, and we continue to do things like egg hunts. day-to-day, we move a lot of trash, we move greek -- we remove graffiti, we have ten annual power washings of
10:59 am
sidewalks. people of flour best six, et cetera. 204th street looks pretty good our biggest challenge is renewing next year. it has been 15 years and we are up for renewal. we are shrinking the district and focusing mostly on the commercial area. we are petitioning to get some funding for a bathroom at the town square. and some projects and visions include murals on blank walls and countdown signals which are part of the long-term plan for the street. our biggest project that we are working on with the merchants is to redo the codes for 204th street. there's too many conditional uses attached to any building or any business that wants to move into the district. that is it. thanks a lot. [please stand by]
11:00 am


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on