tv Government Access Programming SFGTV February 8, 2018 11:00am-12:01pm PST
sudden many of the big developments, whether it's in the -- what is -- i'm sorry, supervisor cohen. the development out by the dog patch. the big one. >> the public housing, you mean? >> forest -- >> forest city. pier 70. >> they'll have child care centres built there. the giants agreed to put a 25,000 square-foot child care centre. so people are begining to recognize that. and one of the things i learned from decades of people leaving the city, there's two main reasons that they come up with. one of them, everybody knows, is the cost of housing. the others one that maybe not everyone knows is they can't find quality early education in san francisco. that is affordable.
and they're getting priced out. what do you mean priced out? how expensive can it be? the average cost for full-day early education programmes in san francisco range from $18,000 to $20,000 a year. compare that with a u.s.c.'s tuition which is $13,000. we're basically finding that our working families are leaving. a lot of it because of not being able to afford the quality of early education that their kids need while they're working. and last year was probably a great year in highlighting the need because mayor lee recognized that and wanted to work forward with a strong initiative. he and many of the supervisors
supported the $2 million to help the homeless families for their child care needs. and then during the budget process, we were able to support a pilot project that i created with the office of e.c.e. s >> e.c.e.s -- what is that? >> office of early care and education. i asked them to -- what we had was a great model for 4-year-olds called a preschool for all that was created over 15 years ago when i was pushing for it in the community. and that programme has been highly successful and even the federal government when obama was the president, really wanted to dupely indicate that at the federal level. within a few years of implementing that programme,
the uptick of children, of 4-year-olds, entering a preschool-type programme was 57% to 70%-something within a few years. and so what's missing in this picture? well, we have a great programme until 4. familis can not wait four years before they go back to work. basically we have a very big gap when it comes to working families from 0 to -- up to 4 years old. for instance, i'll give you a data point here. of the 2500 children, babies, waiting on a waiting list for low income, waiting for subsidies, abouts two thirds of it are children, babis from 0 to 3.
so you see what's missing in support of families is at that age bracket. so, what we're proposing is that with the growth we see in san francisco, with family units finally being built, with very large child care and early education centres being built also, we need provide services, we need to support our families. and this is what it does. for the first time in probably the u.s., we're asking voters to support not tonight lower income, but the middle income. we're asking voters to support families that make up to 200% of a.m.i. and a family of three for 200% of a.m.i. is about $207,000 which -- >> you said 200a.m.i.?
>> 200%. >> 200% of a.m.i. >> so, in other words, families that would qualify up to the -- >> yeah, i understand. i understand. i just wanted to make sure i heard the a.m.i. level correctly. >> with a family of three is about $207,000. on top of that, this ballot initiative will also deal with really a long-term issue of how do we keep our professional, early education workforce, the teachers, in the field when they're the lowest paid educators around. so, we're losing a lot of those people. what this initiative also does is it starts addressing that issue for the first time. we're asking that a big chunk of the fund willing go towards
increasing the salaries of those that are serving these programmes. >> how many people? what is that population of child care providers? >> there is a bigger world of child care providers and then the city contracts with many of the centres and family child care providers. so, this is a subset that is within the city sort of family. and -- >> do we know that number? >> i used to say 2,000 to 3,000. because, for instance, there's about 700, for instance. family child care homes. 700 of them are the larger ones, which are the 12 kids. they would help to have staff. just the family child care alone is about 800 to 900 individuals working in that view and then you have the centre base ones -- and i'm not
even counting the school district which serves a lot of the low-income state subsidies. they have over 1,000 workers just within the school district. the centre base programmes easily have 200,000 workers. you are impacting a lot of workers that are also leaving san francisco and impacting the families here. so, this really is a free for all. one initiative that helps low-income families, that helps the middle-income family and helps the quality of what is provided in san francisco for our children, and hopefully we will start addressing in a big way the salary, the lack of salary for our early educators. i could go on and on about the
benefits of this because this is what i've been doing over 45 years to build up this system. the $4 million that we received to pilot the project for the 0 to 4 is going to infanls and toddler, e.c.e. scholarship programme is well on its way n. many ways, this is very unusual initiative where we're not trying to start something brand-new where lit take us five years to get us up and running. we have it up and running and we have to have the resources. as we roll it out in terms of increasing the numbers that we serve, the facilities will be there. and today i would ask for a continuance of this particular item. it was my fault that it was confusing where things were at.
the initiative was presented by signatures and with this one. >> first i want to recognize ivy lee from supervisor kim's office. i just wanted to give you an opportunity also to present on behalf of supervisor kim who couldn't be with us today but is also the lead sponsor on this initiative. >> thank you so much, chair cohen. and thank you, supervisors, for your time today on this issue. you know, i just want to speak from a very personal point of view. about this measure. i have three kids of my own. and victory and i were both nonprofit attorneys. we made $90,000 between the two of us and we had three kids all in child care at the same time. it was a real struggle. and it was a part of -- it was
part of the reason that i gave up work for about three years in other words to take care of the kids because my paycheque was going straight into child care. i know a lot of people that, you know, think that, you know, it is a hard choice when you are a mom. you feel guilty when you're at work and you feel guilty when you're at home. for me, being a full-time mom was really hard. because i felt like i still had something to contribute outside of the home. but i wasn't willing to put my kids in a system, if i couldn't guarantee that they were receiving high-quality care. i wanted people that would love them as much as i did. and do. and i think that is the crux of this measure is that for women, especially, we're the ones that carry this burden. we're the ones that will have the freedom to actually make choices in the workforce if we have access to quality care that we can actually afford.
and that is the bottom line. that is the key reason that i'm actually at city hall and still working here because that is the last big lift that i really hope we can accomplish. while supervisor kim is still in office. so, i really thank you for your consideration of this measure. and i hope that you will support it. thank you. >> thank you. i appreciate that testimony. supervisor yee, if you can -- and ms. lee, if you could stick around if we have questions. so, just for you, supervisor yee, just for clarification on page 11, line nine, you talk about eligibility programmes. subsection c, specifically. it reads -- supporting physical, emotional and cognitive development of children under the age of 6. that is a very, very broad statement. i was wondering if you could
expand on what exactly that might -- what that might entail? >> so, typical of a really good early childhood education programme and part of this language is very familiar with people in the field that state what they have desire results and regulations along their programmes. and it includes this language. i was part of the development of the -- what we call at the time these are results of programmes. unlike children when they're older, you can separate easier. theses a pexes for a younger child, you don't do well because of cognitive, meaning mainly cognitive development eventually helps with your academic that.
. that's what it means. and being stable emotionally, i learned from our historic programmes in which i ran that without the support of the mental health pieces and other sort of needs for emotional piece, that you're not going to develop your cognitive skills. >> let me see if i can drill down on my question. are there specific programmes that you are looking to get funded? i understand the value. lord knows i understand the value of physical and emotional and cognitive development. but are there specific programmes that are out there? are we creating new programmes? are there -- >> so -- so -- again, this metricks that we use in the city that has been developed over the years, it's sort of looking at the state of metrics and the federal metrics and we develop our own to make sure -- because one of the things -- we
can walk around and say let's have quality programming. what does that mean? so we develop these metrics to measure whether a programme meets the bare minimum to qualify as a programme that we want to support through contracts. so the beauty of this is that we started this 15 years ago with the preschool for all programme and have it developed. i can't give you an exact number. i'm not that closely in terms of how many of the centre base, whether it's for profit or nonprofit. and how many of the family child care providers are under contract. i think next week, the office of the e.c.e. could you give you numbers. >>who? >> september jarret. >> oefk. >> so, what we're hoping for is expand the numbers that can be
qualified as under the programme. we have to -- i have to say that whening we first started 15 year ago, many of the programmes that have contracts now were not qualified. including almost all the school districts because the quality wasn't there. instead of walking away from them, we put in funding to help them improve the quality so many of them became qualified so that is what we're planning to do to bring up other programmes to the level that we feel like where somebody in the ivy league can walk in with her kids and say, yes, this is great and for my grandkids would be walking in in about a year. that would be great. >> are your grand kids walking yet? >> yes. they're running! [laughter] >> ok. >> i also want to add that one of the beauties of this, in
terms of talking about immediate and large impact to the working families, within a year of this passing, we will be able to serve not only 1,000, but 5,000 working families, an increase of working families within a year. that is immediate impact to keep as many of our families in san francisco as possible. >> all right. thank you. supervisor yee, there's little question that the investment in early childhood education pays dividends in the long run. i think no one is here to make that argument at all. i'm interested in how this will affect not just san francisco residents currently, but those who have been displaced and pushed out of the city. but continue to work in san francisco. have you given any thought to that? >> i think -- no.
to be truthful. part of it is trying to serve as many san franciscans as possible. to keep them here. if we want to reach beyond that, for instance, then we need to ask for more money. so it is a matter of priority where we're trying to help people that's actually living here than possibly moving out. >> ok. got it. so we have precedent for legislation that accommodates displaced communities which are overwhelmingly are community of colour, low-income residents, people with challenging immigration status and with the neighbourhood programme, i was wondering if the programme -- does this particular programme
that you are proposing do anything for the displacement of families at all? you said no, but i was wondering if there is room for it. >> there's some flexibility. it's not built into the legislation. but a few things. i'm glad you brought it up. >> ok. >> i mean, i'm so immersed in this sometimes i take it for granted that everybody knows this. but let's make sure the public knows that the workforce itself is 90% of people of colour and women and they're the poorest paid. and many of them have to move out of the city. so we are losing not only what we consider just other working family, but losing these people and i'm hoping that we can keep them in the city.
so, but i think i hear you. i will -- i'm pretty sure we'll have a discussion. we built in some flexibility for this so that -- i didn't want to dictate every single item on this. so that office of the e.c.e. could actually massage it as much as they can. >> ok. thank you. i believe that exhausts my questions and i want to recognize supervisor few weather a few of her own. >> thank you very much, chairman i'm also co-sponsor of this and i will say after being on the board of education for eight years, i know what happens to preschool for all. supervisor yee is absolutely correct that many of our child development centres did not meet the high standard and we had to revamp them all to meet that high standard and it was a heavy lift. it meant looking at curriculum, aligning curriculum with
actually the kindergarten curriculum. it looked at who was actually carrying for our children and with activities and we found there are great discrepancies among geographic locations also which we felt was inequitable. so i know it is a heavy lift. i want to echo the sentments of ivy lee. i stayed home for the first 19 years of my marriage simply because the cost of child care was so expensive. i think everyone should know that this would take 2500 families off the wait list for child care subsidies and also that when you talk about does it help anyone who has been displaced out of san francisco. i want to remind everyone that when we started the children's fund, people said at the time this is political suicide. that will never happen. you shouldn't do it. guess what? we've done it and other cities nationwide have copied what we've done and now it is common
place for other major cities to set aside a portion of their general fund just for children, youth and families so i would hope if san francisco did this, that other jurisdictions and neighbouring jurisdictions where people have been displaced but are still coming in to work that actually would follow suit. again, we lead the way here in san francisco and also have such a high cost of living. also i think that folks should know that 0 to 3, the infant care so expensive. while san francisco unified school district has many early ed programmes, it is very, very few infant care programmes because the ratio is so much different. for a child that is an infant, it is a 6-to-1 ratio. where as a preschool child is a much higher ratio so the cost is less expensive. i recently just met with early education services and they also told me that they will
have to close their doors in 10 years if there is not an interruption because they are losing their staff rapidly. their staff, they serve mainly in my district low-income, cantonese-speaking parents and they cannot find the workforce because everyone has been pushed out of the city. so, not only is this needed to, i think, take people off the wait list, it is also to continue the families of san francisco. there will be people who will be those teachers that are in the centres that will be caring for their children in a high level. and lastly i want to say that seeing the statistics of the san francisco unified school district, we know that early childhood education so important. it is one of the great determiners of how successful a child would be in their k-18 years. in fact, it is so profound that the san francisco unified
school district in the red every year about $6 million, frontloading that education for children because the subsidis that we get back from the state just don't match up to the cost of high-quality child care. and so as a mother but also as someone who is a fourth generation san franciscan and raised three children here, meeting so many families that continue to pay high rents but simply cannot afford the cost of child care, the need for quality child care, for every one of our san francisco residents, whatever [inaudible] they are, but especially the youngest who cannot speak for themselves, that this is an investment in not tonight future of san francisco, but and investment in our families and it is not enough to say that we're family-friendly is that we have to put our money actually where our mouths are. and i think that this initiative is so important to the working families of san francisco and the overall family population in san
francisco as we have the lowest population of 0 through 18 aged children of any large urban city in the united states. so, having said that, i know that the sponsor, supervisor yee, has asked for continuance. i'd like to make a motion to continue this item to the next meeting. next budgets meeting will happen next week. >> ok. let's talk about that. so, before we take that motion, we need to take public comment. ok. so, let's open up the public comment. i have one card here. i want to call michael wineberg. if you are still interested, please come on up. anyone else that's interested in speaking on this item, please come. thank you. >> thank you, supervisors. michael wineberg, sciu local 10-to-1. while the item is considered for consideration or moved to next week, what i had intended to say, which will probably still say next week, is that
our union hasn't -- hadn't had the opportunity to take a formal position on this measure yet. we're calendaring that. generally speaking, we always look at opportunities to provide more for everyone. and generally speaking this looks like one of them. especially in the context of the largest or some of the largest tax cuts ever to be seen by the wealthiest among us. we think that there is a capacity for such a measure to provide for -- provide services for the least among us. and that's paraphrasing, that is the lens with which we would view this measure. thank you. >> mr. wineberg, i have a question for you. are you on sciu staff or a volunteer member or what's your role within the organization? >> i'm a political organizer with the union. i'm employed by the union. >> ok.
and does the union represent worker -- child care workers? >> that is a good question. we represent the sfusd child care workers. >> san francisco unified school district. >> yes. that would benefit from this measure. we do not represent the private providers. >> all right. i appreciate that. thank you very much for that clarification. thank you. >> thank you, you're welcome. >> next speaker. >> mr. bozeman. >> yes. hi. john bozeman again. thank you, chair. our organization hasn't taken any position on any gross receipt tax measure and i'm here to say that our organization, it's not what you're funding. the way we look at it is not what you're funding but it is how you're funding it. any tax, and our members pay a fair share, property tax, transportation tax to different departments and they're ok with that, as long as the money goes to the general fund and you
debate how you want to fund city government and whatever you feel is important for the citizens here and the legislative arena. but when it comes to gross receipt tax and taxes by referendum, we have to say that it's difficult for us to ascertain exactly the sustainability of that tax to fund whatever you'd like. again, it is not what you're funding. it is how you're funding it. you have to look at the long-term economic consequences of an annual tax of $100 million-plus a year on any one specific industry and how that might erode your tax base over time because that would be impactful to us. again, not what you're funding, but just how you're funding i. our industry is a resources for you if you ever have any questions about retail issues or anything regarding taxes. we have a lot of data and we want to be there for you and be at the table and we are. but even more so. so, thank you. >> i have a question for you. >> yes, chair. >> you raise an interesting point, certainly a stakeholder in this. has anyone reached out to you
to talk about this particular proposal? >> yes. i spoke with supervisor yee and supervisor kim. i told them same thing. it's not what you're funding, how you're funding it. the current tax base and the economy is great now. but in these to five years or less, it may not be. and good things can be funded with tax measures, no question. but just be careful what you believe the long-term sustainability of that tax is because if you can't fund it, people will be suffering and we want to make sure these taxes are sustainable, not only for our industry, but for the larger business community, too. >> thank you. thank you. any other members of the public that would like to comment on item five? ok. seeing none, item five is closed. thank you. there is a request about a continuance and i just want to go over the calendar just to touch base on where we are.
so, the request is to continue the item to next week to february 15. and i am not in favour of that. the agenda already is very heavy. we have 12 items already scheduled for february 15. so then i looked at the following week and that is february 22. which we have no board meeting. we have no committee meeting scheduled. there is no board meeting on the 20th due to president's week. so that leaves the following thursday, which is thursday, march 1. so, to the maker of the request for the continuance, march 1 is the next time that the agenda is open i'm willing to schedule at that time. however, i would suspect that we will -- you will already have your answer. part of the desire to have a continuances to figure out whether or not the signatures are validated because there's
this particular topic, that is one topic. there are three different ways that the sponsors are trying to get this before voters by signature, by four signatures collected by the electorate and then by four signatures on the board of supervise source and then through the legislative ordinance process. so, this committee is dealing with the one that is going through the legislative process. i will have a conversation about it. but the next day that we can get this -- the next time this item can be heard is march 1. so i wanted to see -- supervisor yee, i see your name on the roster. >> march 1 is -- in order to move this forward to have a vote at the full board, there's a deadline for that. and march 1 is beyond a deadline. there is a point where it won't matter. >> ok. i agree with you, which is why i'm trying to be transparent on what the agenda is looking like.
supervisor fewer? >> yes. so if we defer this to february 15, which actually has many, many items on it, this might be resolved -- supervisor yee, could this be resolved before the next meeting that we have? >> i actually don't know what's the timeline for the department of elections. how long they take and so forth. >> so, may i -- >> sure. >> in my conversations with supervisor kim, it is expected to be resolved in the next day or so. >> ok. so chair, then i would respectfully dw q that this be continued to the meezing of february 15 in hopes and we will continue to speak with the sponsors and in all likelihood since you haven't spoken to the other sponsor of this initiative that it might be resolved within a couple of days and, therefore, even
though we schedule it, it might not be heard. >> what i'm trying to communicate to you is i'm not scheduling it on february 15. >> oh, you will not. >> i'm not going to be scheduling it. so, the opportunity is either we pass it out and move it forward today or we hold it back until march 1. >> so, supervisor yee, i will defer to you. or i see that also supervisor stefani, do you -- >> hold on. catherine stefani is a member of this body so we'll hear from her. >> if we were to continue it to next week with the understanding that if it were resolved purchase saounltz to the elections department determining whether or not there is enough signatures, would there be a commitment on behalf of the sponsors to then not hear it and not go forward with this one? with this item? >> supervisor yee, i don't know if you heard that. what she was saying is if it
goes to -- if it goes to the -- if the item is continued to february 15 and you hear from the department of elections that your item has been certified, would you withdraw it? but that assumes that it is going to be calendared, supervisor stefani. >> i think, in all fairness, i want to support that. that we withdraw once we find out. is that good enough? >> yeah, i think that is good enough. but you have to understand that there -- i mean, deputy city attorney john gibner. >> if the committee continues the item to next week, lit appears on next week's agenda -- >> there is -- i'm sorry. >> if the committee continues it to next week, lit appear on next week's agenda and the committee could then take or file the item. but you would have to have it
on the agenda, take public comments and take an action on it. >> mm-hmm. >> and on supervisor yee's note about the ballot deadlines, the last regularly scheduled board meeting where the board could act to place this merck on the ballot is february 27. the actual ballot deadline, the actual deadline to sub miss the item to the ballot is march 2. so, if you twoeer hold a committee meeting on march 1, you would have to forward the item as a committee report to a special board meeting on march 2 to get it done to the department of elections at the time. >> ok. i don't want to speak out of turn without checking with president breed. so i don't want to make a decision based on that piece of information. it sounds like that -- so it sounds like there is a desire to move -- let me ask a
question deputy city attorney. this item is on the agenda for february 15, which i already said is a heavy agenda so i'm hesitant. already there are 12 items. a very long agenda. a hearing as well. so i'm hesitant to even schedule this. but if pit were to be scheduled and you're saying that the item would take public comment and then table it? >> if that is the desire of the committee. it would be like any other item. it sounds like you're asking for supervisor yee to commit to not hold a lengthy hearing on the item of that day. but you will have to take public comment and some action, whether that's table, continue it again or forward it to the full board. >> so i am not supportive of the continuance and not supportive of it being heard february 15. so i will not be supporting that. any last-minute remarks that you want to say?
>> no. i just want to reiterate i have a commitment, once we find out, to table it on the 15th. >> ok. thank you. supervisor stefani? >> yes. thank you, chair cohen. i am supportive of it and i understand having been the budget aid to chair ferrell for a while, for three years, i understand what what that's like to have a completely packed agenda and i do feel ok with the commitment from the sponsors that if they're to get the other items certified that they will not go forward with a lengthy hearing and i feel comfortable on that basis continuing to next week. but i understand your concerns. >> thank you. so, let's go ahead. there is a motion to continue this item. it's been made by supervisor fewer and seconded by supervisor stefani. could we take a roll call vote. this is a motion to continue this item to the next meeting scheduled fer february 15. >> yes. on the motion, supervisor fewer? >> aye.
>> supervisor stefani? >> aye. >> supervisor cohen? >> no. >> cohen, no. there are two ayes, one no and with supervisor cohen? -- cohen in dissent. >> all right. this motion passes. madame clerk, could you please call item seven, please? >> yes. hearing to consider the annual review and adoption of the proposed draft budget for fiscal year 2018-2019 and 2019-2020 for the board of supervisors/office of the clerk of the board. >> we have angela calvillo, clerk of the board, to present. welcome. >> good morning, chair cohen. members of the committee, i am -- it is my privilege to represent the hard-working staff in the office of the clerk of the board. we have created this information for you. in december, i present add snapshot of the department's budgets and asked the come
provide its budget instruction and guidance in order for us to prepare the department's fiscal year 2018-19 and fiscal year 2019-2020 budgets. today i'm friending them for your consideration so i may sub mitt the proposed budget to the mayor and controller for the next phase of the budget review. in june, i will return before this committee for your final approval and consideration of any changes for the department's budget. should any change0's cur between now and then. before proceeding, i wish for the committee to know of our gratitude for the resources prieveyously granted through this committee and board of supervisors. those resources have enabled each division in the department of the board of supervisors and the clerk's office to accomplish our mission of transparency, upholding the public records act and the brown act and sunshine ordinance and multituesday of other regular leighs and laws. all divisions contribute their work, which is up loaded to our
website, which equals about an average of one million hits on our website so i wanted to just point that out. in addition to the approximately 5,000 telephone and walk-in and public interactions. and between all the visions, the ledge division, the youth commission, ustf, we all have 100% on our meeting notices and all of our agendas and minutes-to-and packets to be posted at least 72 hours before the meeting. so we're exceptionally proud of the work in our office. so to the slide two which provided the proposed changes. the summary we provided in december, but i'll give you a quick review, regarding the lafco general fund appropriatation.
this is $297,000 of new dollars which is included in this draft budget. this is the maximum amount that lafco is entitled to each year for the government code. you might recall that the lafco positions were eliminated during the last budget cycle. as lafco is currently in the process of hiring a qualified contractor through a request for qualification of the rf2 and their funding needs are still being assessed. we are employing a different approach to lafco's funding approach. we submitted an estimated amount of what lafco believes will be their request for the budgets year only. since the lafco does not adopt its budget until june and only then on a yearly basis. so, this created a technical issue when the request would come in and on occasion it was higher in june. based on the outcome of conversations that we've had with the mayor's office, we are submitting the full statutory
amount on an ongoing basis and will reduce the amount if the actual request from lafco comes in lower. we'll wait and see. this approach makes budgeting balancing more seamless and allows for more accurate budget projection for the outyear. and regarding the constituent management system. we've included 185,000 after conducting a needs assessment for the constituent management system with board member offices. clerk of the board staff and i should give all of that credit to wilson ang. he has engaged with discussions with sales force and industry leader in providing customer relationship management, what we're calling the c.r.m., solution with whom the city has an enterprise agreement to evaluate the costs for configuration and implementation. the ongoing costs would be approximately $75,000 per year for software licensing fees, for contract management, technical support, security, a
news leader, out reach and engagement component. there would be a one-time professional services cost for approximately $110,000 for architecture, data and set-up. they would work to issue a city-wide r.f.p. and procure a vendor for this xhoefm and there are no new f.t.e.s in our department in addition to no revenue changes. so, on to slide three. and i have a total of four slides. slide three is a new item that wasn't included in our december presentation. the joint analyst joint venture has submitted a request for a cola, which is a 3% adjustment to their current $2.2 million contract that cola would add approximately $67,000 to their contract, bringing the total
amount for fiscal year 2018-19 close to $2.3 million. so slide four shows a summary first of all shows the fiscal year 2018-19 budget for all the items and then the proposed changes by category. if you approve the lafco funding and the cola increase as listed in the line item entitled nonpersonnel services, the dptz fiscal year 2018-19 expenditure budget would increase a total of $549,000 or $3.5 from the base budgets. this concludes my presentation. i have to thank those individuals sitting behind me and who are in the office who buoy us every day to carry out our important work. i thank you and we're available for any questions. >> thank you very much. i appreciate how everything is always clean and con ?ies your presentation. i'd like to go to public comment and see if there is a member of the public that would
like to comment on item seven. any member of the public that would like to comment, please come up. seeing none, public sxhenlt closed. -- comment is closed. all right. i'd like to make a motion that we have heard this item and we will file it. i'll take that without objection. thank you. all right. we have to go back to the last temperature and i want to apologize. i overlooked a presentation. we were supposed to hear a presentation from ted egan on the commercial rent taxes. i'm not doing any funny business. my apologies and i legitimately forgot. mr. egan, thank you for coming back. supervisor ye, e and supervisor kim, if you could send your representives back to the chamber. we'd appreciate it. just so that you are a part of this conversation.
i'd like to make a motion -- excuse me. for clarification procedurally. how do i open up item number six. do i make a motion to re?inld all right. i'd like to make a motion to rescind the vote for item six. if i could take that without objection. thank you. motion passes. ok. so t hearing is back open. we'll be discussing business tax reform, the transition and progress specifically, want to talk about commercial rent taxes for child care, homeless services and transportation. mr. egan, thank you for being flexible and coming back. we will now hear your report. >> my pleasure. i apologize for jumping the gun and not sticking around for the last temperature our office introduced a report on all three pending commercial rent taxes and the economic impact of the tax and the use of that spending on the local economy. as you're only considering at this point the one with reference to the one originated by supervisors kim and yee,
also sponsored by supervisors ronan, fewer and peskin to fund early childhood education, i'll restrict my remarks to those, although i'll answer questions. >> if you could just stick to the presentation. this is a budget of finance committee so i wanted to talk about taxes. >> ok. >> so, if we could stick to the entire presentation, i'd appreciate it. thank you. >> sure. ok. these are the three taxes that are the substance of our report. supervisor peskin's tax to fund city transportation operations and for structure, the supervisor kim-yee tax i alluded to and also those by safai, sheehy, tang and cohen. all three proposals have certain common features. they're all dedicated tax which is means they are going to require at least the ones that we considered here two thirds vote for approval by the voters.
all three proposals will exempt landlords with less than $1 million in gross receipts from taxation. those property owners are currently exempt from the gross receipts tax already, they will also necessarily exclude certain financial corporations that cannot be taxed locally and also all three allow commercial landlords to exempt gross receipts taxs from nonprofit tenants. beyond that, tlrp significant differences along the three, the however. the safai proposal is relatively narrow in the sense that it exempts gross receipts from a broad swath from commercial tenants in the city, including all retail trade, accommodation, arts, entertainment, recreation, p.d.r. tenants are all exempt. we estimate that leaves about 71% of all the commercial gross receipts in the city that would be subject to the tax. i apologize for the typo here that we will fix.
under this proposal, they will be taxed at a rate of 1.7%. and then this tax is dedicated, as i mentioned, to the acquisition, rehabilitation of permanent supportive housing, single occupancy buildings, rent controlled buildings to make them permanently affordable. rental subsidies to low-income households and $1.5 to $3 million general fund contribution and the first two fiscal years. the proposal by supervisors kim and yee with the co-sponsors has the highest rate of the three, 3.5% rate. it would exclude several uses, including government, arts, industrial and nonformula retail uses. the rate would also impose a rate of 1% on warehouse uses in the city. as you heard earlier, the uses here are for early childhood care in education, increasing the compensation of the tax revenue would be contributed to the general fund.
it includes a provision that the mayor and board of supervise so evers can not reduce these programmes, general fund support in the future because of this tax. supervisor peskin's proposal is relatively broad and excepts nonprofits and others are taxed at 2% and the uses here are transportation operations and transportation infrastructure. this is a summary table we put together that just shows the different potential times of tenants in the city and what the tax rate that that time of tenant would face under each of the three proposals. as you can see, supervisor peskin is on the left as the broadest and supervisor safai on the right is the most narrow. we have estimated -- and this is a little bit of the math behind the revenue estimates that supervisor peskin's is worth about $103 million and the supervisor kim et al. proposal is worth $146 million
and the safai is worth action $64 million a year. these are based on 2016 numbers which will have already changed but it is the most recent information that we have but it will change further if and when the tax pass and they're collected in the following tax year. just to speak briefly about the economic impact of the taxes, like most legislation, we analyze these proposals all have economic costs and benefits and the essential net income impact is the relative weight of those two. on the cost side, this imposes a tax on commercial real estate as we discussed earlier. some but not very much of the tax, we believe, will be passed on to commercial tenants. because of the pattern of exempting some type of tenant and not others, this legislation would create essentially winners and losers among tenants in the rental markets. so, for example, an owner of a retail space, if formula retail was subject to the tax and
nonformula retail was not subject to the tax, might choose or offer a lower base rent to a te nanls who wasn't formula retail and would not result in a tax for them. i think that those affects are quite small and on the margin, but they're worth mentioning. the most important benefit of the tax that we're able to model here is the spending aspect of the revenue because they are dedicated taxes. we know a little more than we do with the general purpose tax and what the tax's economic impact will be in terms of their spending in the economy. i don't think i'll go through the logic that we spoke about before with the logic of the tax-through. this is essentially the economic impact assessment that we came up with. in each of the three cases, the economic impact -- the net economic impact is slightly negative, ranging on the average over the next 20 years, -184 jobs under the peskin
proposal to 746. for the kim-yee proposal, similar numbers in employed san francisco residents. the first number is all jobs in the city, regardless of where the worker lives. similarly, relatively modest declines for g.d.p. and per capita disposal income in the city. we find that the economic impacts are moderately negative in each case. more or less, the bigger the tax the more negative the effect is on a net basis. to put it in a little bit of context, these percentage of changes can of jobs in g.d.p. range from .04% to .08% on the high end. overall in san francisco, we've seen g.d.p. growth of 3.2% a year over the past 10 years, total employment growing at 2.6% over the last 10 years and these are relatively modest, negative impact impacts on the context of the city's recent
growth trajectory. >> all right. >> happy to take any questions. >> thank you. i know. that was worth sticking around for. just for the record, i correctly stated. rescinding the item for item six. i would like to correctly state to rescind the vote for item number five. this is number five. i have a couple of questions. can you walk us through your expected employment change numbers on page 13 of your report on the commercial rent taxes for child care. here are my questions. what drive this is negative impact? what is the first thing that comes to my mind? if we are boosting wages and boosting female participation in the workforce, why is it having an adverse impact? >> well, first of all, i have to say -- and i didn't go into detail on this slide -- that we're not able to project how much increase in female participation you would get
from these programmes. i would acknowledge it is a limitation of the report. to some exthaenlts that's due to a lack of detail exactly in what the spending will be for. i did look into this question. san francisco is relatively unusual to the rest of the united states in that we have high rates of labour force participation. for all women, it is about 85%. for women with children, if i recall, it is in the upper 70%. so, i don't have any way to estimate what the labour force participation rate increase would be. i suspect it will be relatively small since there is high labour participation rate by women. this is to result in savings for family with children who would have greater public sector support and less reliance on the family's resources for child care and there would be some, but probably not very much re-entry of women into the labour force.
we do take into account the $146 million that gets spent raising the salaries of child care workers and on expanding the child care industry. the net negative comes from the reduction to the commercial real estate sector, that comes from the fact that that sector will be carrying a brunt of the tax and also the job losses associated with tenants that have some rent pass through. as we said earlier, that's a relatively small number. that is the more detailed version of the answer. >> definitely. i appreciate the details. i think it is helpful. the next question, kind of moving on. on page six, line five in the definition of commercial spaces, it appears to exclude, quote, industrial uses. in the control -- in the controller's presentation p.d.r. includes industrial as being taxed. can you -- give clarity as to
why it was excluded. >> i'm sorry. the proposal that is before you in item five does exclude industrial uses. it does not exclude, as i read it, other p.d.r. uses that are not industrial. so, industrial is a subset. a pretty big subset of p.d.r. but not industrial p.d.r. would be subject. >> ok. i appreciate that. all right. i don't know if my colleagues have any other questions. >> no. >> no? ok. we found that to be helpful. is there neals you want to share with us? >> no, i think that is about all we have on this. >> ok. i'm sorry. i have one more report in front of me. the san francisco business tax reform -- oh, it's the annual report. we already discussed that. all right. so, thank you. we're going to take public comment. if there is any member of the
public that would like to, again, take comment on item five, you can do so. seeing none, public comment is closed. i have a proposal that might help solve the dilemma of a continuance. we could pass this and move it out of committee and send it to the full board to be scheduled on february 27. february 27, which would satisfy the sponsor's deadline concerns and i see a nod from supervisor kim's office that this may be -- we could send this and entertain a motion to sthenlds with no recommendation to the full board just to get it out of committee and get it on the full board agenda to be heard on february 27. this is something that i think is a safe and amenable compromise.
>> i'll make that motion. >> ok. thank you. that's great. i'll restate the motion. to send it out of committee. there is no recommendation. and we'll be sending it to the full board for february 278 and take that without objection. thank you. all right. madame clerk, is there any other business before this body? >> there is no further business. >> all right. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. thank you, ladies and gentlemen. we're adjourned.
- working for the city and county of san francisco will immerse you in a vibrant and dynamic city that's on the forefront of economic growth, the arts, and social change. our city has always been on the edge of progress and innovation. after all, we're at the meeting of land and sea. - our city is famous for its iconic scenery, historic designs, and world- class style. it's the birthplace of blue jeans, and where "the rock" holds court over the largest natural harbor on the west coast. - the city's information technology professionals work on revolutionary projects, like providing free wifi to residents and visitors, developing new programs to keep sfo humming, and ensuring patient safety at san francisco general. our it professionals make government accessible
through award-winning mobile apps, and support vital infrastructure projects like the hetch hetchy regional water system. - our employees enjoy competitive salaries, as well as generous benefits programs. but most importantly, working for the city and county of san francisco gives employees an opportunity to contribute their ideas, energy, and commitment to shape the city's future. - thank you for considering a career with the city and county of san francisco. >> good morning, everyone and thank you for coming my name is rosy form treasurer of the united states and the form of empowerment 2020. >> yeah. >> empowerment 2020 is an initiative to durnl encourage a million women